Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Postmen (Medical Retirement)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many postmen have been retired on medical grounds in the last two years; and what was the average age of those retired.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): The Post Office tells me that in the two years ended on 31st March, 1972, 1,231 postmen were retired on medical grounds. The average age was 48·4 years.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that I am absolutely staggered by these figures? Does he agree that this is a serious problem? Will he further agree to set up a medical inquiry to investigate the causes of postmen retiring at such an early age? Surely this situation requires further investigation?

Sir J. Eden: I do not minimise the seriousness of this matter, but it does represent 0·7 per cent. of the total postmen staff. There are special arrangements in the Post Office, which has its own occupational health service. It is conducting an investigation into some of these matters in conjunction with Guy's Hospital.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what medical condition was the cause of the largest number of medical retirements among postmen in the last two years.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office tells me that diseases of the bones and back and muscular troubles were the major causes of retirement.

Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that evidence is now emerging to the effect that heart conditions and bronchitis as a result of work in the new mechanised sorting office are a further major element in the discharge of postmen at an early age? If this proves to be the case in the study now being conducted by Guy's Hospital, will the Minister ensure that interim measures are taken to do something about those two diseases?

Sir J. Eden: The study, in conjunction with experts from Guy's Hospital, is being conducted into the widespread incidence of low back pain among postal workers. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that coronary disease and angina are involved. Mental, psycho-neurotic and personality disorders and bronchitis are other major causes.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the concern that is felt when 10 per cent. of the labour force is affected in this way? Will he ask the Post Office how many of these men, as well as being affected by their industrial work and activity, have served their country in peace and in war?

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that a substantial proportion of them will fall into that last category. These are people to whom traditions of service seem to come very naturally. No one can be complacent about the situation and, as I hope is clear from my replies, the whole matter is now being examined very seriously.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Chairman)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what salary he intends to offer to the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation when he or she is appointed.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to announce the appointment of a new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he


expects to announce the name of the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the name of the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation and give an assurance that in accordance with the Government's policy on the incomes freeze the salary paid will not be more than the present incumbent's £6,000 per annum.

Sir J. Eden: The new chairman will be announced as soon as the choice has been made. I confirm that the standstill on incomes will apply in this case.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister give us some idea about the degree of urgency which he attaches to this problem? Is he aware that it is getting extremely near to the point where Lord Hill will be saying "Enough is enough"? Will he give an assurance that he is seriously considering the possibility of making this job a full-time rather than part-time appointment? Is there any reason why it should not be publicly advertised, rather than be subject to the patronage of the right hon. Gentleman or, worse still, of the Prime Minister?

Sir J. Eden: We are not hanging about on this. The terms of the new appointment, when it is made, will be made clear.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is this not a matter of great urgency, since Lord Hill is retiring on 31st December and hon. Members have been asking questions about the appointment of a successor for the past eight months? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of having a new mould of chairman—one who will see his role as being, in particular, to look after the public interest?

Sir J. Eden: I agree that there is not a great deal of time left before the present chairman's retirement comes into effect. The nature of the job to be carried out by the new chairman will be evident at the time the appointment is announced.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am pleased to hear that the salary is to be kept at the frozen level. Why has it taken so long to fill this appointment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I could make

101 wonderful nominations, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)? Why go on like this when there are plenty of people around?

Sir J. Eden: I am sorry that I did not have the hon. Gentleman's helpful suggestion a little earlier.

Sir R. Cary: Is it not sometimes customary for a vice-chairman to take over the responsibilities of a retiring chairman, particularly if the vice-chairman is a most competent and agreeable person?

Sir J. Eden: As a general observation I am sure that that is quite right.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that in the event that there is some further delay over the appointment of a new chairman there is no cause for concern or alarm? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, as has been suggested, the vice-chairman could take over temporarily? Might this not give the director-general the chance of asserting his authority instead of being overpowered by an active chairman?

Sir J. Eden: I do not think that this affects the position of the Director-General at all. This question is concerned with the new chairman.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friends and I feel that it is not good enough to have delayed this appointment for so long? Is he aware that we believe it is neither fair to the person who will be appointed nor to the BBC, since the new chairman will have have only a short time to work with the old chairman, until the end of December? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that we believe he ought to have made the appointment some time ago, and that we are sure that there are plenty of competent people able to do the job?

Sir J. Eden: I have no doubt about the last point. On the whole I agree about the importance of this question.

USSR (Telephone Communications)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make representations to the Russian authorities concerning the disruption of telephone


communications between subscribers in the United Kingdom and Jewish scholars and scientists in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Sir J. Eden: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's anxiety but I cannot add to my answers to his similar Questions on 10th May, 7th June and 9th August.—[Vol. 836, c. 1292; Vol. 838, c. 440; Vol. 842, c. 1700.]

Mr. Janner: I appreciate that the Minister has great difficulties in this matter, but is he aware that there is a continual process of harassment and cutting-off of subscribers in the Soviet Union, so that people in this country cannot get through to them and our patient and excellent operators on the Continental exchange are put to entirely unnecessary difficulty and aggravation? Therefore, if evidence is provided to the right hon. Gentleman, will he consider how this matter might be approached in a different way?

Sir J. Eden: In answer to previous Questions from the hon. and learned Gentleman I have encouraged him to produce as much detailed evidence as he can for the purposes of the Post Office. I should be grateful if he would proceed in that way.

Future of Broadcasting

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether, having regard to the fact that the ownership of commercial television and radio and local and national newspapers is falling into a few hands and to the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board in this respect, he will give an assurance that any forthcoming survey of the future of broadcasting will have terms of reference covering the whole field of communications.

Sir J. Eden: I prefer not to anticipate the terms of reference of any such survey.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the Minister bear in mind that the Prices and Incomes Board's Report, Cmnd. 3435 of 1967, made a specific recommendation that it was high time that the communications of this country were considered as a whole? In making that recommendation it was thinking not only of radio and television but of the national Press.

Would it not be appropriate that the communications media should, for the first time, be considered as a whole in their relationship to each other, particularly as those relationships are now getting very close?

Sir J. Eden: That is an extremely interesting suggestion, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would take us very much wider than had been contemplated hitherto in the context of a survey.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now announce his decision concerning the appointment of a committee of inquiry into the future of broadcasting after 1976.

Mr. Russell Kerr: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has now received to implement the recommendation in the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which investigated the Independent Broadcasting Authority, that there should be an urgent inquiry into the future of broadcasting.

Sir J. Eden: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 8th November to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others.—[Vol. 845, c. 977–8.]

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that that is an amazingly unsatisfactory answer? Will he give the House one reason for this continuing delay, over and above his own inability to make up his mind and what appears to be the inadequacy of his staff to brief him on the strength of public feeling on this issue?

Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Select Committee has recently issued its report. This is an extremely important report, which merits careful study. Although I am very much alive to the wishes of the House that a considered reply should not be unnecessarily delayed, I must take account of the important recommendations in that report.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My right hon. Friend will be considering the question of the personnel of any committee of


inquiry, but he will realise that the question of its terms of reference is equally if not more important. I am sure that he has this very much in mind.

Sir J. Eden: Yes. My hon. Friend will recollect that earlier this afternoon there was a Question on the terms of reference.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Does the Minister recollect that at last Post Office Question Time I asked him specifically, in relation to the inquiry, whether the charter for the BBC and the renewal of contracts for the companies operating under the IBA would come up for renewal in 1976 and would not be delayed. The Minister was not able to answer me then. Perhaps he will answer me today.

Sir J. Eden: They come to an end in the normal course of events in 1976, and clearly something will have to be done by that time.

Mr. Kerr: Can the Minister indicate whether we are to get an answer on this tremendously important matter before Christmas?

Sir J. Eden: I agree that this matter is extremely important, and I well understand the interests of all hon. Members and their wish to have specific and clear-cut answers to these questions. I will do my best to ensure that this is done as quickly as possible.

Telephones

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office not to connect or reconnect telephones to properties occupied by illegal squatters.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. A matter of this kind must be left to the Post Office.

Mr. Mitchell: When the Post Office is asked to connect or reconnect a telephone, what precautions does it take to ensure that the person making the request is the legal owner-occupier or tenant of the premises?

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office does not normally inquire into the circumstances of a person applying for a telephone: I do not think it would be right that it should do so. But if it were made clear

to it that the person occupying the property was occupying it illegally, it would make a point of consulting the legal owner about the provision of a telephone.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Surely the Post Office inquires into the creditworthiness of some potential subscribers, even if it does not inquire into the legality of their occupation of the premises. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office places considerable emphasis on the need to protect its revenues.

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what changes in the waiting times for new telephone installations there have been over the past three years.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the latest figure for the average waiting time for the installation of telephones.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office tells me that the 20 per cent. of applicants who are placed on the waiting list for telephones have to wait, on average, just over five months. This time has not changed significantly over the last three years.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the report of the Post Office National Users' Council said that supply and demand were clearly out of step over the matter of telephones? As this is at a time when the telecommunications services are due to get £4,000 million of extra capital over the next five years, may I ask how long it will take to cut the average waiting time by half?

Sir J. Eden: The reason for delay is not so much that there is a shortage of telephones as that there have been delays in the provision of exchange equipment and of buildings to house it. This is being energetically tackled by the Post Office, by industry, and by my Department. I hope that we shall be seeing increasing improvements in the coming months.

Dr. Miller: Will the Minister confirm or deny that in some areas there is a reprehensible practice in respect of payment for the installation of a telephone, in


that some people are asked to make the payment in advance—sometimes as much as three or several months in advance—and others have the telephone installed before a bill is sent to them? This practice bears most heavily on working people, who may need a telephone just as much as middle-class people.

Sir J. Eden: That is a matter for the corporation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What are the figures in regard to the installation of telephones in Northern Ireland? What priority is the Post Office giving to Northern Ireland for the many telephone subscribers who have been cut off because of terrorist activity? Is the priority to get them back on to the telephone system or to install new telephones?

Sir J. Eden: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question without notice, but I will certain inquire into the position as he has brought it to my attention.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is not a waiting period of even five months far too long? Something needs to be done quickly to reduce that period? Is the Minister aware that in the Dearne Valley constituency there is a long waiting list, especially in the Mexborough district, where at present no hope is held out that applicants can have telephones in two or three months?

Sir J. Eden: Yes; I am aware that some areas are worse than others. Special steps are being taken by the Post Office, in direct consultation with industry—and by myself and my Department, in consultation with industry and the Post Office—to identify the black areas and speed up the delivery of equipment.

Concessionary Television Licences

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will seek to meet representatives of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations as part of his examination of the question of concessionary television licences.

Sir J. Eden: The views of the federation on the question of concessionary television licences for retirement pensioners are already well known to me.

Mr. O'Halloran: In view of the injustices which still exist in our society, is the Minister aware of the desirability of granting concessionary television licences to pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefits?

Sir J. Eden: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, I have said on a previous occasion that I am looking into the whole of this question.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend concede that he and his predecessor have both given us the somewhat trite reply that the matter is being considered? Has it not been considered for the last 10 years and been found wanting with a large majority of hon. Members? Cannot he expedite the processes and listen once again to the old-age pensioners' recognised organisations?

Sir J. Eden: I cannot speak about what has happened in the last 10 years in this connection. I have been in my present position only since April this year, and I am bringing a fresh mind to inquire into the problem.

Mr. Lipton: At the beginning of this Session I presented a petition signed by 22,000 old-age pensioners in favour of concessionary rates. Has the Minister taken any notice of it?

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that if any old-age pensioner—or any other person, for that matter—were asked if he was in favour of having something for nothing, the answer would be "Yes".

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that one of his hon. Friends intended to present a Private Member's Bill which would deal with this subject? It is reported in the newspapers this morning that the Government have decided to block the Bill and to refuse it a Second Reading. The Bill would have presented a useful opportunity to air an important problem which we want to discuss in the House. The Minister is doing all of us less than justice by not allowing us the opportunity.

Sir J. Eden: I have not seen notice of any Private Member's Bill to this effect.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the Minister's very unsatisfactory answers, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what further consideration he has given to the matter of concessionary television licences for pensioners; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: As I told the hon. Member on 8th November, I am looking again at the whole question of television licence concessions for retirement pensioners.—[Vol. 845, c. 983–6.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the early day Motion on the Order Paper which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and which has been signed by at least 100 of my hon. Friends? Will he give the House the total cost of giving all old-age pensioners a free television licence, and undertake to bring before the House as soon as possible the conclusions of his review?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of the existence of the Motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers and of the extent of support which it has received. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is, about £25 million a year. In regard to the third part of the question, I shall do so.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the proposal is a little odd, since it provides for concessions to be given to people over the age of 60 or 65 but does not include concessions for the blind and other disabled people?

Sir J. Eden: This concession is designed to meet the needs of elderly people who live in certain types of old people's homes which would qualify as registered homes for this purpose. I know that this matter has given rise to considerable anomalies, and it is the existence of those anomalies which gives rise to this Question and to my inquiries.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that throughout the country young people in voluntary groups obtain old television sets, put them in working order, and give them to old-age pensioners and others, including the disabled? Is he further aware that in many cases proposed recipients are unable to take sets because they cannot afford licences with which to

operate them? Would it not be a great contribution by the Government if they could assist these young voluntary groups by providing free licences for those whom these voluntary groups seek to help?

Sir J. Eden: I think that a matter of this kind is more properly a subject for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. There are any number of questions as to the proper order of priority in the provision of welfare benefits and assistance of this kind.

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the estimated annual cost of the concession he announced on 19th July, 1972, whereby the families of people living in old people's homes could benefit from reduced television licence fees; and approximately how many families will so benefit.

Sir J. Eden: No estimate of the cost is possible, but the number of people affected is unlikely to be large.

Mr. Moate: Is it not a fact that the cost is likely to run into only a few thousand pounds? Will my right hon. Friend's next concession be a little more generous—for example, charging lower licence fees to pensioners or to those who are in receipt of supplementary benefits?

Sir J. Eden: Generosity does not enter into the matter. This was a response to a particular case raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I did my best to meet the case because I recognised that there was justification for taking some action. I hope that what I have done will be helpful even if only to a small number of people.

Telephone Kiosks (Vandalism)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress has been made in providing vandal-proof telephone kiosks; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: Out of a total of 76,000 kiosks, 52,000 have been fitted with strengthened equipment and nearly 3,700 are of the new, improved design.

Mr. Dempsey: But is the Minister aware that whole areas, especially in the


west of Scotland, have been left bereft of the means of communication with the emergency services? How many of the vandal-proof kiosks have been provided in my part of Scotland?

Sir J. Eden: I am sorry that I cannot answer the detailed question which the hon. Gentleman asks about Scotland. However, the kiosks which are being introduced are what I might describe as "vandal-resistant" rather than vandal-proof. The programme shows that there has been a welcome diminution in the number of incidents of destruction of these important pieces of property.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that however desirable it may be to make the kiosks both vandal-resistant and vandal-proof it is absurd to produce the type of kiosk now being installed at main British Railways termini, in which it is almost impossible to hear what is being said?

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the Post Office will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Postal Services

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of first class post is now being delivered the following day.

Sir J. Eden: The latest Post Office figures show that about 92 per cent. of first class letters are delivered on the next working day after posting.

Mr. Price: In view of all the problems facing the Post Office, particularly the continued closure of railway lines, is not that a remarkable figure, and does it not provide the answer to some of the neurotics on the benches opposite, who never have a good word to say about the Post Office? Will the Minister answer one question for the benefit of his hon. Friends? Does he know of any postal system in the world which is cheaper or more effective than the British system?

Sir J. Eden: I do not think that any of us on this side of the House feels particularly neurotic. However, no one in the Post Office is complacent even about the figure that I have given.

Mr. Waddington: Can my right hon. Friend say why such a large proportion

of the remaining 8 per cent. arrive at my home or other premises in North-East Lancashire?

Sir J. Eden: It may have something to do with the time at which the letters were posted.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not wish to criticise the Post Office, but will the Minister bear in mind that a problem is arising particularly in rural areas where there has been a reorganisation of the local post offices? May I quote the Forest of Dean as an example? Local letters are sent to Gloucester before they are sent back to the Forest of Dean. Consequently, a high percentage of first class mail is not being delivered the day after it is posted.

Sir J. Eden: In May 1972 the Chairman of the Post Office announced a special action programme to make improvements in the reliability of all letter mail delivery. It included a special analysis of problem areas and reported difficulties. I am sure that the chairman will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Post Office National Users' Council

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will take steps to improve the operation of the Post Office National Users' Council.

Sir J. Eden: The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries reported favourably last year on the way the council now works, and I see no reason at present to make any changes.

Mr. Dormand: Although I believe that the Post Office generally gives a good service to the public, there are bound to be some genuine complaints. Is there not a need to strengthen the users' council by making it more independent, and making it seem to be more independent, and a need also to strengthen the machinery at local level? The right hon. Gentleman must have misread the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries not to reach that conclusion. Will he give an assurance that the Select Committee's recommendations will be implemented soon?

Sir J. Eden: The Select Committee only recently examined the whole question of users' councils and in its report


it specifically singled out the Post Office Users' National Council for commendation and suggested that it should serve as the model for any new councils that come into being.

Mr. Madel: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the regrettable decision of the Post Office to close the Downs sub-post office in Dunstable, in my constituency. Is he satisfied that those who have an interest in and are dependent on sub-post offices have an adequate opportunity through the users' council to make their representations and views known to the Post Office hierarchy in London?

Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend can make direct representations to the users' council on this very point.

UHF Transmitter (Selkirk)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is now in a position to announce the date when the ultra high frequency transmitter at Selkirk will come into operation.

Sir J. Eden: It has been transmitting the Independent Broadcasting Authority's service since 1st March, 1972. UHF transmissions of BBC1 and BBC2 are expected to start next spring.

Mr. Steel: The transmitter the Minister referred to as already transmitting is the ITV one, not the still awaited one for BBC. Can he give an accurate date, because this transmitter was originally schedule for March 1972? We are now well past that date. I know that it was put back a year, but can the Minister give a specific date when it will come into operation, so that we can get BBC2 transmissions and colour television on BBC?

Sir J. Eden: My right hon. Friend the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications told the hon. Gentleman in October 1971 that BBC1 and BBC2 services were planned to begin during 1973. I have made this more specific today by saying that it will be in the spring. I cannot get closer than that at present.

Dame Irene Ward: Why has the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend's predecessor that the North-East coast should have services available before the end of this year been put into limbo when the new arrangements are going

through for Carlisle and Scotland? Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that the North-East coast is not treated in this way? We are very angry. We do not want everything to go to Scotland to the exclusion of the North-East coast.

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern. I will be answering the Question that she has on the Order Paper.

Dame Irene Ward: It is a pledge.

Television Reception (Scotland)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will list the areas in Scotland that are known to be bad television reception areas; and what proposals have been made to remedy the position.

Sir J. Eden: This information is already provided in the publications of the two broadcasting authorities, both of which will send coverage maps to the hon. Gentleman. The 625-line services are still being developed.

Mr. Eadie: But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the great disquiet, and, indeed, sometimes anger, in areas which suffer from bad television reception. Does he not appreciate that television reception at Penicuik, which is in my constituency and which borders on Edinburgh is absolutely deplorable? What assurance can he give to my constituents in this technological age that an improvement will be brought about with the utmost expedition?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware that there is not universal coverage at present and that those who do not get the sort of reception they want are naturally disturbed. But this programme will take time to develop. The uhf coverage in Scotland will require a further 16 main stations compared with 38 in England. This means one station for every 340,000 people in Scotland and one for every 1·7 million people in England, or proportionately five times as many.

Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend see that in deciding which areas should have improved reception the powers that be will take account not only of population but the number of people who come into Scotland, such as tourists, and who


often multiply the population? Will he agree that bad television reception can have a very bad influence on the tourist trade?

Sir J. Eden: Yes; I take note of my hon. Friend's point about visitors for holiday and other purposes. The fact remains, however, that it will always be extremely difficult to get effective coverage in areas with widely dispersed populations.

Sound Broadcasting Services (West Country)

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if, in view of the representations made to him concerning the loss of medium-wave regional broadcasts to the West Country, he will take steps to provide the necessary wavelength facilities at least until 1975.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement relating to the loss of medium-wave regional broadcasts to listeners in the West Country and the need for more wavelength facilities.

Sir J. Eden: Following the BBC's proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and our decisions in "An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting" the medium frequencies have been reallocated.

Mr. Hannam: My right hon. Friend has given an unsatisfactory answer. Does he not agree that, bearing in mind the fact that over 70 per cent. of listeners in Devon and Cornwall and the South West do not possess vhf sets, and the Government, in adopting "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and abandoning the BBC medium wave local broadcasting so early in the decade, have achieved a crisis in regional broadcasting? Will he investigate the matter and ask the BBC to use one or two hours daily on Scottish or Northern Ireland regional wavelengths to provide these valuable local broadcasts on medium wave to the West country region?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of the strength of feeling on this subject in the West Country and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which I shall examine. However, I am sure that he will understand that once it was decided to create a new pattern of local stations,

as well as to improve the opportunities for external broadcasting from this country and to give medium wave back-up for BBC as well as commercial radio stations, there was bound to be a considerable change from the pattern that existed previously.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the South West is a very low-income area, with an above average number of people living on retirement and fixed incomes? Is he not even more aware of the fact that this decision has caused real disappointment throughout the region, and is regarded as a further reduction of public services in our area? Surely the Government have an obligation to try to influence the BBC on this topic.

Sir J. Eden: It is not a case of trying to influence the BBC; it is a case of having to reallocate the medium frequency. We have comparatively limited frequency availability in this country, and once we start to make changes I am afraid that it is extremely difficult to keep to the pattern to which people have become used. I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's point about the circumstances of people who are losing the particular benefits of regional broadcasting from the BBC, but I am afraid that this is the direction in which radio broadcasting is clearly moving.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these medium wavelengths have been removed from people in the rural areas to confer the inestimable advantage of commercial radio on the conurbations, some of which eminently deserve it. If he does not accept that, will he warn my constituents when they will be able to hear commercial radio?

Sir J. Eden: It is caused by the fact that first of all there was a very wide ranging regional opt-out, which went all the way from Bexhill to Bodmin—not an identifiable area. Secondly, there was the need to give medium wave frequency back-up both for BBC local radio and commercial local radio stations; and, thirdly, there was the need to improve our external broadcasting. In due course the commercial radio stations will increasingly come forward, and Plymouth is one area that is identified for this operation.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister bear in mind that the transference of regional programmes to vhf will mean that an enormous number of people in my region will have to buy a new radio if they want to receive the local programmes? Does he appreciate that this will bear particularly hard on old-age pensioners and low-paid workers? Is this not all being carried out for the simple expedient of giving commercial radio a channel?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The future of local radio clearly lies with vhf. We must also face the fact that in 1974 the whole question of frequency allocation to this country comes up for renegotiation at international level. This is a factor which we must contemplate from this point of time.

Postal Addresses

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to ensure that the names of parishes and townships are included in the postal addresses which they recommend.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The form of postal addresses is a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Hardy: That is disappointing. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that local pride and regard for one's community should be encouraged? If he does, will he ask the Post Office to approve the inclusion in the postal address of the name of the village or parish, with particular reference to the village of Orgreave, which is near to, but not part of Sheffield?

Sir J. Eden: There need be no difficulty about that. There is some misunderstanding, I think, in view of the guidance notes which have gone out from the Post Office. If people wish to include the name of their village or parish in the address there is no reason why they should not. The Post Office has made clear the minimum requirement for an efficient postal service. If people wish to put the name "Orgreave" in the address, they may do so provided that they also put "Woodhouse Mill, Sheffield".

Television Licence Fees (Non- payment)

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunica-

tions how many persons within the last 12 months in Wales have given notice to the authorities of their intention not to pay television licence fees on the grounds of non-reception or limited or impaired television reception in their areas.

Sir J. Eden: One such letter has been received in my Department.

Mr. Morgan: Despite that, will the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there are many people in Wales, of all shades of political opinion and not normally disposed to law-breaking, who believe that a serious injustice has been suffered in many communities embracing thousands of people who are unable to have any television reception at all? These people, who have been at the end of the queue for vhf transmissions over the years, will now find themselves with the lowest priority of all for uhf when it eventually comes. Will the right hon. Gentleman take swift and decisive action?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of people's feelings on this subject, as expressed by the hon. Gentleman. But the licence fee is not directly connected with the quality of reception; it is a payment for permission to use television.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Will the Minister take steps to inform those in charge in BBC Wales that it would be advisable that people who advocate non-payment of the television licence fee should not appear as directors, producers or interviewers on BBC Wales programmes?

Sir J Eden: That is a matter for those concerned to handle.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Mr. Peter Rees: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects the whole of England to be covered by the subscriber trunk dialling system.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office tells me that it hopes to complete the STD programme by about the end of 1974.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I wonder whether he is aware that Dover, Deal and Sandwich are still not covered by STD, that the new Dover exchange pas been completed but is still not in operation, and that this is intensely frustrating for


those who have to telephone to and from that area, as well as for those who work in the present antiquated exchange at Dover?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of the special difficulties in the Dover exchange. I am hopeful that the work on it will be completed within a few months from now.

BBC Wales (Reception)

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of the people of Carmarthenshire can receive the British Broadcasting Corporation Wales channel.

Sir J. Eden: Sixty-six per cent.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great disquiet in my constituency because about 40 per cent. of the people do not receive BBC Wales programmes? Will he, before considering a fourth channel as a separate Welsh channel, take steps to ensure that the facilities already available elsewhere are made available to all my constituents?

Sir J. Eden: I shall consider the points which the hon. Gentleman makes. Some people may well find improvements in reception if they make certain that they are using the right sort of outside aerial. I stress the importance of that, and any encouragement which the hon. Gentleman can give in making certain that people look to their aerial installation would be useful.

Hospital Wards (Telephone Services)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to reduce the rental charged for hospital trolley telephone service points, bearing in mind that such costs are often met by outside charitable concerns.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. This particular charge is a management matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Whitehead: In the Derby area we have a league of hospital friends which is charged £13·80 per quarter per point for this service, so that if four wards were serviced with one point in each

the cost would be about £54 per quarter, or £220 per year. Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Post Office that it should lay on the facility not as a profiteering service but as a social and welfare service?

Sir J. Eden: There is no question of profiteering. The Post Office has to cover its costs. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that a coin-box telephone service is usually available in hospitals, and the additional service to which he refers is not very frequently used during the course of a day. However, I shall certainly take note of what he has said.

Television (Welsh Language)

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will request Sir Robert Cockburn's Committee on the future of television to consider specifically the needs of Wales in view of the fact that two languages are spoken there.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The Television Advisory Committee is concerned with the technical questions only and would not be expected to deal with the wider considerations which such a study would prompt.

Mr. Morgan: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that for over 40 years broadcasting in Wales has been given special consideration, turning upon the distinctive position of Wales as a country and as a nation? Will he give an undertaking that when the new charters are considered in 1976, or earlier, and especially in the context of the allocation of a fourth television channel, the particular needs of Wales will be given fair and proper priority?

Sir J. Eden: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the particular needs of Wales or of any other part of the United Kingdom will not be overlooked.

Mr. Tom King: Has the committee considered a measure of protection from broadcasts from Wales for other parts of the country which have no wish to receive them? Many people in my constituency and neighbouring areas in the West Country would much like to have broadcasts in their own language.

Sir J. Eden: I have an idea that the strength of signal from BBC Wales has something to do with international agreements, but I shall look closely into the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Government Offices (Dispersal)

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what sites are being considered for the dispersal of Civil Service work from London.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Several areas throughout the country are being considered as potential receiving locations to receive Civil Service work dispersed from London. These areas include Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I am glad to hear that. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he was widely reported in the Press as saying that no locations more than 180 miles from London would be considered for dispersal? That would be intolerable. Will he take this opportunity to deny it?

Mr. Baker: I was widely misreported, and I willingly take this opportunity to say that there is no limit whatever. The whole purpose of having a review of headquarters work is to look at those areas where there are under-utilised resources, and we are looking at all the development areas and regions of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that at present in Glasgow several modern new office blocks are available which would be suitable for Civil Service employment, and, moreover the average rentals charged in Glasgow are about one-quarter those of comparable offices in the centre of London?

Mr. Baker: Both those factors will be borne in mind by Sir Henry Hardman and his Committee. I should point out that Scotland has 42,000 civil servants. Since May, 1963, the last major exercise, 11,000 jobs have been dispersed or created in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions are taking place with the Civil Service trade

unions regarding the dispersal of Civil Service work from London.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As I told the hon. Member yesterday, there have been consultations with the national staff side throughout the dispersal exercise. These consultations are continuing. Individual departments have been keeping their own staff sides informed.

Mr. Millan: It is obviously right that these discussions should take place with the trade unions, but is the Minister aware that there is a danger that the decision about location might be determined by national trade unions, which, since most civil servants are in London, will tend to be London-dominated? Should not the final decision be the responsibility of the Government, with regional policy considerations in mind? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is the position?

Mr. Baker: The Government pride themselves on being good employers, and certainly, as good employers, we have already consulted and will continue to consult the national staff side. We have done this in dispersal exercises in the past and we shall certainly do so in this instance.

Mr. Heffer: Is there not a very good case for the local branches of the Civil Service unions being consulted, particularly in areas of high unemployment such as Merseyside? While the hon. Gentleman is considering dispersal, may I ask him to bear in mind that there are large office blocks in the centre of Liverpool, which have now been empty for a number of years, which could take Civil Service departments?

Mr. Baker: Yes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at areas like Merseyside and the North-West generally. Obviously I shall not be able to satisfy everybody on the question of dispersal. The North-West, apart from the South-East, has the highest concentration of civil servants. None the less, these factors will be taken into account by the Hardman Committee.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Glasgow and the West of Scotland.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: When existing plans have been completed, some 7,000 Civil Service jobs will have been dispersed to Glasgow and the West of Scotland since 1963. In addition, some 2,500 jobs will have been established in the Glasgow area under the policy of setting up new offices away from London. Scotland is also being considered during the current review of the possibilities of dispersing further work from London.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's intentions concerning effective regional development policy will he looked at very closely in the light of what they do regarding Civil Service dispersal. In view of the high number of school leavers still out of employment in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, is it not clear that the bringing in of a large number of Civil Service jobs will give them the new opportunities which they desperately need.

Mr. Baker: Yes. As I said, these factors will be taken into consideration by the Hardman Committee. The whole purpose of having a dispersal exercise is the Government's belief that there is a great deal of good sense in taking jobs to people. That is the keystone of our regional policy.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it might be of greater value to the economy of Scotland to reduce the burden of bureaucracy overall than to increase the burden of bureaucracy in Scotland?

Mr. Baker: I certainly agree that one of my responsibilities is the burden of bureaucracy. There is a Question on the Order Paper about this matter, and I have some quite encouraging figures to announce.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress made in the dispersal of Civil Service jobs from London.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Since May, 1963, which is the date of the last major dispersal initiative, just over 22,000 posts have been dispersed, while another 8,300 are due to be dispersed under existing plans. In addition, just over 7,000 posts have been set up in new headquarters

units outside London, and another 11,000 are awaiting establishment under current plans.

Mr. Mackenzie: In his dispersal policy will the Minister take into account the need to appoint some senior people into Scotland and other areas of that kind? If there is to be any encouragement for young people to enter the Civil Service, is this not exceedingly important?

Mr. Baker: Yes, indeed. We are conscious that in a programme of dispersal civil servants should be dispersed in sufficiently large numbers to provide a career base for those who are dispersed. I assure the hon. Gentleman, there having been several Questions on Scotland, that we are sympathetic. I hope that he will not take the view that the Government—or I, personally—are unsympathetic to Scotland's claims. The best thing I did in my life was to marry a Scot.

Mr. McBride: Has the Minister considered the claims of Swansea and South Wales as a point of dispersal for Civil Service jobs on three brief counts: first, that it is approximately 200 miles from London; secondly, that this would help in the diversification of employment, and, thirdly, taking everything into consideration, that the city is an extremely pleasant place in which to live?

Mr. Baker: Yes. I think that the Hardman Committee will take these factors into consideration. I should point out that Wales has been the lucky reception area of a substantial number of civil servants—particularly the Swansea area, which has the vehicle licensing centre.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the experience of the Department of Education and Science, from which two important and large branches were dispersed to Darlington during the Labour Administration? Is there any reason why virtually the whole of a Government Department of that kind should not be sent to one of the development areas?

Mr. Baker: One problem about the dispersal of civil servants is that in the past we have tended to disperse executive blocks of work, and we are now looking at central policy units. They create considerable communications problems.


However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that these are just the kind of problems at which Sir Henry Hardman and his Committee will be looking.

Official Report (Printing)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the arrangements made in the Stationery Office for printing the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The OFFICIAL REPORT is produced by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in its St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press.
Copy for typesetting is supplied by the Editor of Debates. Close liaison is maintained between his editorial staff and the Press. Production takes place overnight and the first copies are normally available to Members by 8 o'clock.
Each day's OFFICIAL REPORT includes the proceedings in the House up to 10.30 p.m. Proceedings after 10.30 p.m. appear in the following day's edition.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is intolerable when, because of an industrial dispute at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, this House is expected to give Third Readings to Bills without having any text of part of what has been said in the Committee stage debates? If industrial relations at the Stationery Office are as bad as they appear to be today, is it not high time that the contract for the printing was taken away and put somewhere else?

Mr. Baker: I regret the incident that led to the non-appearance of HANSARD on 15th November. As I have already explained, this was due to a technical failure in the heating equipment of the plant. I believe that industrial relations in the Press are improving, but I am conscious that their first duty is to provide the printed matter that this House requires.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regular production of HANSARD day after day is a remarkable achievement and a great tribute to both the editorial and the printing staff, who get it out so quickly and on time, and that occasionally if we are to be deprived of the remarks in print of the hon. Mem-

ber for South Angus (Mr. BruceGardyne) an industrial dispute is a small price to pay for it?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am sure he will not be one who jumps up to ask me questions when there is another breakdown—which I hope there will not be.

Civil Servants

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will give, for 1st June, 1970, the total number of civil servants and their annual costs and similar details for the latest most convenient stated date.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The number of civil servants at 1st June, 1970, was 700,750 and at 1st October, 1972, was 690,985. The provision for Civil Service salaries and wages in the Supply Estimates was £937 million in 1970–71; the current provision in the 1972–73 Estimates is £1,086 million.

Mr. Lewis: I shall be able to congratulate the Government and the Minister if he can assure me that this is comparing like with like. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is alleged that some of the 1971s have been transferred into other categories, and that therefore we are not comparing like with like? Can he assure me that if it were comparing like with like the figures which he has given would in fact apply?

Mr. Baker: No. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, from Questions that I have answered earlier this year, that a certain number of civil servants have been hived off. He must also appreciate that some have been hived in. We have taken in a large number of civil servants who were formerly employees of local authorities. If the hon. Gentleman wants to play the numbers game, he must do better than that.

Mr. Rose: As the hon. Gentleman insists on giving us figures which are not seasonally adjusted, will he say how many additional civil servants will be needed to collect VAT in respect of professional fees which are paid from the State to recover 10 per cent. of those fees paid out by the State and bring them back to the State?

Mr. Baker: That question is really for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he has said that the increased number of civil servants required to introduce VAT is about 6,000. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that if the House approves the Government's tax credit scheme there will be a saving of between 10,000 and 15,000 civil servants.

Mr. Rost: Can my hon. Friend say how many extra civil servants have to be used to deal with Questions tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for West Ham, North is equivalent to about 15 clerical officers.

Mr. Sheldon: The answer to that question shows the application of my hon. Friend. Referring to the number of civil servants, is not the hon. Gentleman guilty of a little fiddle? Is not the figure that really matters that of non-industrial civil servants? Did not the Prime Minister mean, by his pledge, that he was going to reduce the number of non-industrial civil servants? Can the hon. Gentleman say just how those figures have changed in the last two-and-a-half years?

Mr. Baker: The distinction between industrial and non-industrial civil servants—and I am not making a party point—is a very fine one in many jobs. For example, Ministers' drivers are industrial civil servants, which seems absurd. [Interruption.] Junior Ministers do not have drivers. Since 1970 we have consistently looked at the whole size of the Civil Service, industrial and non-industrial.

NORTHERN IRELAND (ROCKET ATTACKS)

Rev. Ian Paisley: Rev. Ian Paisley (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the IRA rocket attacks on the Crown forces, RUC stations and installations in Northern Ireland yesterday.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): In a series of rocket launcher attacks yesterday terrorists fired a total of 15 rockets at 10 different targets in Northern Ireland. I regret to inform

the House that in one attack, on the police station at Belleek, one RUC constable was killed. Seven soldiers were injured in two of the incidents, fortunately none seriously. There was some structural damage, mainly of a minor nature, in eight of the incidents. Although all the attacks were undoubtedly vicious in their intent, the one made upon the Finniston School in Belfast was particularly contemptible. Mercifully no one was hurt. With permission, I will circulate full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The House will also be interested to know that at 4.50 p.m. yesterday a car travelling down Osborne Street in Londonderry stopped on being confronted by a security force Land-Rover, and the occupants ran away. A rocket launcher and rocket of Warsaw Pact design were found in the car.
Investigations are continuing and no effort will be spared by the security forces to bring to account those responsible for these further despicable attacks on the community in Northern Ireland.
I have also just heard that there was a further rocket attack in Belfast earlier this afternoon. It was against the Army post at Flax Street Mill. Fortunately there were no casualties.

Rev. Ian Paisley: While expressing sympathy with the relatives of Constable Robert Keys and Gunner Paul Jackson who were victims of IRA attacks yesterday, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the concentration of such attacks adds a new dimension to the IRA terrorist campaign? Can the Minister confirm the first reports made by the Army authorities who were able to get one of these rocket launchers that the weapon was made in a Communist country in Eastern Europe?
Is it not a fact that an announcement has been made about the withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Northern Ireland? In view of the attacks made yesterday, will the Minister assure the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no rundown of the Army in Northern Ireland whilst the terrorist campaign is escalating in this way?
Can the Minister of State give the House an assurance that in future local intelligence will be employed by the Army so that the deplorable happening in Old


Park, to which he referred, which took place from a vacant house in the Army control area, will never occur again? Will he assure the House that these houses will be put under surveillance by the Army authorities when they are vacant, and will he draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the fact that one attack was mounted from south of the border? Will he press his right hon. Friend to pursue the matter with Mr. Lynch's Government?

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that the whole House will join the hon. Gentleman in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed and injured yesterday. I agree with him that the scale of these rocket attacks introduces a new dimension although, as he will be aware, rockets have been used in Northern Ireland before, notably in August and September 1971. I confirm what I said in my original answer, namely, that it is our belief that the rocket launcher that was found is of Warsaw Pact origin.
On the question of withdrawal, the level of our forces in Northern Ireland is kept under continuous review by the Government, and the right level of forces is determined. We do all in our power to improve local intelligence and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this has greatly improved in recent months.

Mr. Hattersley: May I first associate the Opposition with the expressions of sympathy for the relatives of the men killed yesterday and the soldiers who were casualties in yesterday's outrage?
Next may I express the Opposition's concern at what must be described as a further escalation of hostilities in Northern Ireland and, in the light of what has happened, may I ask two specific questions. First, will the Minister look carefully at the outcome of the announcement made yesterday that a substantial number of British troops are to be withdrawn from Northern Ireland in the next few days? In the light of what has happened and, indeed, in the light of what may happen on both sides of the border, many people believe that this may not be the best time for withdrawing troops. If the Minister feels that he wants to alter the steps announced yesterday, may

I tell him that he will receive no criticism from the Opposition for doing so?
The Minister described the rocket launcher that was found as being of Warsaw Pact design. Can its origin be more carefully and closely specified than that? If it can, may we have an assurance that the ambassadors of any countries which are demonstrably supplying arms to Northern Ireland will be summoned by the Foreign Secretary in the immediate future and told that they must take whatever steps they can to stop that from happening?

Mr. Gilmour: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that we keep the level of our forces under continuous review.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that the fragments of the rockets used and the one recovered are being examined. It appears to be an RPG7, which is a rocket type anti-tank weapon manufactured in several Warsaw Pact countries and supplied to various forces outside the Warsaw Pact. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will realise, the country of origin of this weapon is not necessarily the country of supply.

Mr. Rose: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that all those on this side of the House who have been concerned with affairs in Northern Ireland deplore this further escalation of mindless violence? Will he accept that this ultimately must make reconciliation in that area far more difficult?
With regard to the border attacks, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the IRA forces withdrew when forces of the Irish Republic appeared on the scene? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is adequate communication between this country and the Republic with regard to border incidents and incursions, from whichever side they may come?

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that the House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. There is a good deal of co-operation with the Republic, and this has improved recently. Of course we should, in due course, wish for more.

Captain Orr: May I press my hon. Friend on the intelligence point? What I think disturbs public opinion at the


moment is that people seem to have been taken by surprise by the scale of this new type of attack. What steps are being taken to strengthen intelligence, particularly to determine how these pretty substantial weapons got into the country, either north or south?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not accept the implication of my hon. and gallant Friend's question that there has been a failure of intelligence in this matter. As I said earlier, our intelligence has improved, but it obviously is not possible for us to be continuously aware of every development that takes place throughout Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: Is it thought that many more of these rockets are still in terrorist hands?

Mr. Gilmour: We feel that that is probably so, but our information is not certain.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In relation to the attack on the Army post at Finniston School in the Old Park Road, are my hon. Friend and the House aware that a rocket head hit a wall, but fortunately did not explode, 30 yards from 200 schoolchildren? Would the House reflect what kind of human beings could do such a thing? Second, would my hon. Friend consider whether, in the border areas, it would be possible to develop some form of joint communication system with the Southern Irish Army, so as to enable them to get on the scene very promptly?

Mr. Gilmour: On the first question, what my hon. Friend says is perfectly true. It is extraordinarily lucky that many children were not killed in this contemptible attack. We have telephonic communication with the Garda and we are examining the possibility of improving our communications.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the anxiety of hon. Members on this matter, but I must move on.

Following is the information:

1. 9.35 a.m.—Belleek RUC Station

One rocket passed through a ¾-inch armour plating in front of a window killing a RUC Constable. Two hundred small arms rounds were fired subsequently at the station from across the border. Security forces returned fire until the Irish Army arrived at 10 a.m.

2. 11 a.m.—Bunciana Road Vehicle Check Point

Two rockets were fired at the vehicle check point where troops were investigating a burning lorry. In a subsequent cross-border engagement over 1,000 rounds were exchanged. One hit was claimed by security forces.

3. 11.15 a.m.—Finniston School, Belfast

One rocket passed through the outer perimeter wire and hit the main building but caused minimal damage.

4. 11.30 a.m.—Strabane RUC Station

Two rockets passed through an outer wall, over the head of a policeman, and embedded themselves in an inside wall. Damage was considerable but was confined to the upper floor. Shots were also fired at the station. It is thought that the rockets were fired from inside the town.

5. 12.20 p.m.—Crossmaglen RUC Station

Two rockets were fired at the station from south of the border. Both struck the roof and shrapnel from one slightly injured an Army officer. Some 30 rounds were also fired.

6. 12.29 p.m.—Falls Road, Belfast

A practice rocket was fired at a Saracen from Peel Street. It missed and passed through a 12-inch thick wall.

7. 6.05 p.m.—HQ 3 Infantry Brigade, Lurgan

Two rockets were fired at the Lurgan factory, in which HQ 3 Brigade is situated. Two separate rocket launchers were used, one rocket travelling through a bus before hitting a four-ton vehicle and exploding. There were six casualties from shrapnel. The second rocket missed the building.

8. 6.10 p.m.—Albert Street Mill, Belfast

One rocket was fired at the mill from the area of a local factory. A hole 1 foot 6 inches in diameter was made in the roof near an observation post but there were no casualties.

9. 7.00 p.m.—Pomeroy RUC Station

A rocket was fired at the station but there were no casualties. Four sentries opened fire but no hits were claimed.

10. 7.45 p.m.—Lisnaskea RUC Station

Two rockets hit the front of the station and penetrated to a waiting room, causing minor damage. Twenty rounds were also fired into the station from a passing car. There were no casualties.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 15th DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Nigel Spearing.
Mr. A. W. Stallard.
Mr. Clinton Davis.

BILLS PRESENTED

PENALTIES FOR MURDER

Mr. Edward Taylor, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Ronald Bray, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Peter Doig, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Carol Mather, Mr. Idris Owen, Mr. John Page, Mr. James Scott-Hopkins, Mr. James White, and Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 relating to prison and detention sentences for murder; to make further provision for the composition of Parole Boards; and for puroses connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26th January and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (CONTROLS AND REGULATIONS)

Mr. Hugh Dykes, supported by Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. John Horam, Mr. John Hunt, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Ernie Money, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. J. T. Price, and Mr. David Steel presented a Bill to make new provisions governing the construction and use of heavy commercial vehicles, and to control the movement and parking of such vehicles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd February and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

DANGEROUS DRUGS AND DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr. Ron Lewis, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, and Mr. David Weitzman presented a Bill to

amend the law in relation to liability for personal injuries, and consequential loss arising from the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of medicinal products and drugs for human use; to amend the practice of the court in relation to the assessment of damages; to amend the Limitation Act 1963; to make further provision for the needs of disabled children; and for purposes connected with these matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9th February and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

DOMICILE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Ian MacArthur, supported by Mr. Russell Johnston, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Ronald King Murray, and Sir George Sinclair presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the domicile of married women and persons not of full age, to matters connected with domicile and to jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings including actions for reduction of consistorial decrees; to make further provision about the recognition of divorces and legal separations; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16th February and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

POLICE ACTS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Phillip Whitehead, supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. S. Clinton Davis, Mr. Deedes. Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. David Madel, Mr. John Pardoe, and Dame Joan Vickers presented a Bill to make further provision for the investigation of complaints against the police and for the publication of police reports; to make other provisions relating to the police; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

PROTECTION OF WRECKS

Mr. Iain Sproat, supported by Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon, Mr. Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. Patrick Wall, Mr. Stratton Mills, Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Robert Adley, Mr.


Donald Stewart, Mr. Ben Ford, and Mr. Frank Judd presented a Bill to secure the protection of wrecks in territorial waters, and the sites of such wrecks, from interference by unauthorised persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd March and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr. Kenneth Lewis, supported by Mr. John Page, Sir Edward Brown, Mr. Philip Holland, Mr. David Waddington. Mr. Ronald Bray, and Mr. David Mitchell presented a Bill to regulate employment agencies and businesses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th February and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (No. 2)

Mr. W. W. Hamilton, supported by Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Edward Bishop, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Peter Archer, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Robert King, Murray, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, and Mrs. Renee Short presented a Bill to make illegal, and provide for the prevention of. discrimination on grounds of sex; to establish an anti-discrimination board; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

NATIONAL LOTTERY

Mr. James Tinn, supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier, Mr. Bernard Conlan, Mr. Eddie Griffiths, Mr. W. H. Johnston, and Mr. Ray Mawby presented a Bill to authorise the creation of a National Lottery Board; to empower and require the Board to organise and operate a lottery scheme and to make grants in aid of charitable organisations, medical research and other social and welfare purposes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

HALLMARKING

Mr. Jerry Wiggin, supported by Mr. John Osborn, Mr. Ronald King Murray, the Earl of Dalkeith, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Brian Walden, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Tugendhat, Mr. Adam Butler, and Mr. David Watkins presented a Bill to make fresh provision for the composition, assaying, marking and description of articles of, or containing, precious metals, and as to agencies for the implementation and enforcement thereof; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

LAW REFORM (DILIGENCE) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie, supported by Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Bruce Millan, and Mr. John Smith, presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to diligence; to exempt from diligence certain household effects and furniture; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd March and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS

Dame Irene Ward, supported by Dame Joan Vickers, presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the guardianship and custody of minors: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS (WARNING DEVICES)

Mr. Greville Janner, supported by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. John Astor, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Grimond, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Neil Marten, Mr. Robert McCrindle and Mr. John Cronin presented a Bill to require the provision of warning devices in or upon the homes of elderly or disabled persons or of other persons in need thereof; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

EXPORT OF ANIMALS (CONTROL)

Sir Ronald Russell, supported by Mr. Burden, Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Kenneth Lomas, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. J. T. Price, Miss Joan Quennell, Mr. Ivor Richard, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, and Sir Robin Turton, presented a Bill to prohibit or restrict the export of certain animals; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

HEATING FOR THE ELDERLY

Mr. Frank Judd, on behalf of Mr. Alexander Lyon, supported by Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Alfred Morris, and Mr. Michael Meacher presented a Bill to authorise local authorities to pay the cost of heating the homes of elderly persons where there is proven medical or financial need: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th May and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Douglas Houghton, supported by Mr. Richard Body, Sir Bernard Braine, Miss Janet Fookes, Dr. Alan Glyn, Mr. Kenneth Lomas, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Mr. Ivor Richard, Dr. Shirley Summer-skill, Mr. Frederick Willey, and Mr. W. T. Williams presented a Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11th May and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN

Mr. Jeffrey Archer, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. James Hill, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Mr. Ernie Money, Mr.

Laurance Reed, and Mr. David Steel presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to restrictions on the employment of persons under the upper limit of school age and to the means of imposing and enforcing such restrictions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd February and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

PUBLIC INDECENCY

Sir Gilbert Longden, supported by Mr. Rees-Davies, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Charles Morrison, Miss Joan Hall, Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, Mr. Norman Lamont, and Mr. Deedes presented a Bill to prevent the display in a public place of grossly offensive matter: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th April and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

TRANSPLANT OF HUMAN ORGANS

Mr. Barney Hayhoe, supported by Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Maurice Foley, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Sir Gerald Nabarro, Mr. Charles Simons, Mr. Tugendhat, and Dr. Gerard Vaughan presented a Bill to facilitate the transplant of human organs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6th April and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES (NON-PAYMENT TO STRIKERS)

Mr. Ralph Howell, supported by Miss Joan Hall, Mr. Ernie Money, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. Robert Adley, and Mr. Kenneth Warren presented a Bill to provide that supplementary allowances shall not be paid to persons on strike or to their dependants: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th February and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

CIVIL ESTIMATES 1973–74

(Vote on Account)

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,937,369,300, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil Departments, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 11, for the year ending on 31st March 1974.

CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1972–73

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £372,107,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge

That this House, disturbed about the plight of thalidomide children, calls upon Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited, in dealing with these cases, to face up to their moral responsibilities; and calls for immediate legislation to deal with the problems of such children, including the establishment of a trust fund to provide for the thalidomide children, for State as well as private responsibility for provision on an actuarial basis for proved cases, and all other related questions.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. Members, in line 1, leave out from 'children' to end and add:
'and the delay in reaching a settlement between Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited and most of the children and their families recognises the initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve services for the handicapped and disabled; and welcomes the undertakings of Her Majesty's Government to investigate any case where the needs of a thalidomide child are thought not to be met by the services available, and to consider, as soon as the cases are no longer sub judice, whether a trust fund needs to be established for thalidomide children'.

Mr. Ashley: If the House will forgive a personal note, perhaps I might say that I think it important that hon. Members should feel free to try to intervene while I am speaking, if they wish to do so. I shall try to lip read them, but if I cannot I will receive a note from one of my hon. Friends, a procedure which will take about five seconds—a small price to pay for the cut and thrust of debate in this Chamber. Having said that, I might

which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1973 for expenditure in respect of the Civil Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Paper No. 12.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Higgins.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1973 and 1974 presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

Orders of the Day — THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,

add that it does not follow that I shall necessarily give way to every hon. Member who seeks to intervene.

The whole House will be grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for providing time to debate this tragic problem. It will respect the call for a constructive debate. That does not mean, however, that criticism should be muted, because quite enough voices have been silenced in recent years. So criticism—and a demand for action—will be stressed as strongly as possible. To do otherwise would be to rig the record by default. To do otherwise would be to fail the children, and far too many people have failed them already. I am afraid that no hon. Member of this House has any reason to feel proud of what he has done for thalidomide children in recent years, and that includes myself.

The Alf Morris Act helped all disabled children, but the problems of thalidomide children might have lain in a legal limbo for ever had it not been for a series of articles in The Sunday Times which was both brave and brilliant. The Distillers Company tried to gaol the editor of


The Sunday Times for his pains but I believe that the House would wish to take the opposite view and would want warmly to congratulate the editor and his fine staff.

We are debating today a great national tragedy, none the less poignant because it happened 10 years ago. This is one tragedy in which the passage of time instead of healing the suffering actually heightens it, for children who were robbed of the magic of their childhood by a manmade disaster are now approaching the highly sensitive and emotional years of adolescence without arms, without legs and, in some cases, without organs. Adolescence is a time for living and laughing, for learning and loving. But what kind of adolescence will a 10-yearold boy look forward to when he has no arms, no legs, one eye, no pelvic girdle and is only two feet tall? That is the height of two whisky bottles placed one on top of the other. How can an 11-year-old girl look forward to laughing and loving when she has no hand to be held and no legs to dance on?

I ask the House to look at the photographs I have in my hand of these two children. In my view, the photographs illustrate dramatically the kind of problem which is all too easily regarded under the umbrella phrase of "thalidomide children". These are the human tragedies which the House must debate today. Yet the powerful and wealthy Distillers Company, with assets of £421 million and profits of £64 million, has had no compunction in fighting these children for no less than 10 years. This is a shocking example of man's inhumanity to man, not to mention this firm's inhumanity to the children.

The company aggressively marketed thalidomide from 1958 until 1961, despite two warning signals which were published in the British Medical Journal. One warning was heeded by the Americans, and they would not allow thalidomide into their country. But Distillers Company, undeterred, sold this drug with the following advertisement:
Distaval"—
that is, thalidomide—
can be given with complete safety to pregnant women.

That advertisement was a cruel travesty of the truth and it resulted in unsuspecting women swallowing thalidomide. The result was 432 malformed and deformed babies in Great Britain. Yet after more than a decade the majority of these children have not received a penny from the Distillers Company. The children's living standards are falling as the profits of the company are rising. We are witnessing not only a shabby spectacle but a grave national scandal, a display of moral irresponsibility which has seldom if ever been surpassed.

There are a thousand excuses why these children should receive no money, and every excuse has been scavenged by the company throughout the last decade. Twenty-four hours ago the company announced that it has increased its miserable offer of £3¼ million to £5 million. It is a remarkable coincidence that it should be announced only yesterday. But I do not expect many people to be taken in by what is palpably a gimmick, because it should be seen against a background of the settlement for thalidomide children which was made in 1968, which in itself was grossly inadequate.

One of these children, a boy named David, with no arms or legs, was assessed by a responsible actuary, taking actuarial considerations and inflation into account, as needing £106,000 to provide for extra care and to compensate for loss of earnings. The House should note the figure of £106.000. But by the time that a judge, and the Distillers Company, had finished with that boy, he received £9,600 for this purpose. The judge refused to take account of actuarial considerations because, the learned judge said,
The time has not yet arrived".
The judge also refused to take account of inflation. He regarded talk of inflation as inadmissible because—again I quote the learned judge—
inflation is based on speculation and hear-say
That is very good news indeed for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As a result of that judicial decision, however, this boy was left with a sum, apart from compensation for the loss of amenities of life, which will run out when he is 27 years old. But the Distillers reduced even that sum by 60 per cent. because it denied negligence.

I ask the House to compare that figure with the amount awarded to an American thalidomide child, who received £321,000 for her injuries. It has been agreed in Britain that the other cases will be settled on the same basis as David's case. Thus, the company paid £1 million for 62 other children. That works out at a rough average of £16,000 per child. Yesterday's new offer of £5 million for the 370 children who have not yet received a penny will result in a rough average of only £13,500. So after allowing for inflation, as we must—the Government admit to inflation, although the judges do not—yesterday's figure, in real terms, will be only 66 per cent. of the previous deplorable level awarded to the other children. It is a scandalous offer which literally adds insult to appalling injury. These children need at least £20 million, on any realistic assessment. Many of us will look very hard to the company to make sure that the children get it.

So much for the company. What of the Government? I do not wish to approach the Government's responsibility in any party-political sense, for three reasons. The first reason is that no one in the House has a monopoly of compassion. The second is that the Labour Government took no steps to establish a fund when they were invited to do so. That was just after the court settlement in 1968 when it was reasonable to assume that the Distillers Company would settle the remaining claims fairly quickly. Thirdly, the children's cause will suffer if the issue becomes a party political one, and such a development is quite out of the question. Party politics have no place in the debate. But the Government's attitude and that of its agencies has been, and is, quite extraordinary.

In 1958 the task of classifying drugs fell to the Cohen Committee. I know that there have been lots of Cohen Committees but the one to which I refer was the Standing Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Medicines. An impressive name, but did it do an impressive job? Its terms of reference stated that it had to consider and report on drugs and medicines of doubtful value. But it actually placed thalidomide in a category, the description of which included the words "New remedies of proved value".

The Cohen Committee was a Government agency, and its disastrous decision encouraged doctors to prescribe thalidomide under the National Health Service. That establishes clear responsibility. Now, of course, the Prime Minister is disclaiming responsibility on behalf of the Government, but I believe that his position is untenable. It may be argued that the Cohen Committee had no powers at that time. But the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), later Minister of Health, said in 1962 that the committee had powers to say that a particular drug had not been satisfactorily tested. The committee remained silent, however. If the Government were not satisfied with the powers they then had, they were quite able to bring forward new legislation to cover the full eventualities. The situation existed, therefore, where over 400 children were born maimed and deformed and yet the responsible committee apparently had no powers and took no steps to obtain those powers either for itself or for the Government.

The Government's reaction today is equally remarkable because when I asked the Prime Minister to establish a special fund he said that we should await the outcome of negotiations. He says much the same in the amendment, and that is one of the reasons why the amendment is totally unacceptable. It is an astonishing situation. There is nothing to stop negotiations being dragged on by the company for another 10 years. There is no reason why the negotiations should not now be concluded. So the Prime Minister by his categorical statement and by the amendment is handing over to the company the right to veto the Government's actions—

Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Member will know that I am completely behind him in his general views on the subject, as, I think, are my hon. and right hon. Friends. But I beg him not to say that the Prime Minister did not go as far as it was possible for the leader of a Government to go when he made his statement the other day in reply to another hon. Member.

Mr. Ashley: I accept that comment in the spirit in which it was meant, and I do not refer to the Prime Minister in any vindictive sense. He has, however,


written me a number of letters and he has answered Questions at the Dispatch Box. His answers were that he could take no action on the fund until negotiations were concluded. I make no personal attack on the Prime Minister, but he is responsible. I submit that he must change his mind. He has expressed his sympathy and his sympathy is welcome, but sympathy simply will not pay the bills that have been incurred for these children in the last 10 years; sympathy will not pay for the necessities of life for the next 50 years. We must have action rather than an expression of sympathy.
I hope that if the Prime Minister feels the need to bring legislation forward, he will say so. Hon. Members on both sides will willingly stay day and night to assist him in getting that legislation on to the Statute Book. I have no doubt that some measures will be brought forward which I hope will benefit the thalidomide children. I have no doubt also that after the terrible tribulations of these children, who have suffered for so long, new legislation which will benefit future generations of disabled people will be brought forward.
I hope that the disabled of the future will be able to carry their burdens into a more just and fair society, a society which has looked deeply into its collective conscience and which has reassessed its attitude towards disabled people. If that day dawns, as I hope it will, I hope that we as Members of the House of Commons will be able to look back and say that we all faced up to our moral responsibilities for thalidomide children.

4.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "children" in line 1 to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
and the delay in reaching a settlement between Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited and most of the children and their families recognises the initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve services for the handicapped and disabled; and welcomes the undertakings of Her Majesty's Government to investigate any case where the needs of a thalidomide child are thought not to be mat by the services available, and to consider, as soon as the cases are no longer sub judice, whether a trust fund needs to be established for thalidomide children ".

Before I speak to the Motion there is an interest that I must declare. Through reinsurance effected in the early 1960s by a syndicate of which I was then a member I might be liable for a small percentage of a small share of the cost of any claim arising through legal action against Distillers. The amount for which I would be liable would be most unlikely to exceed several hundred pounds.
I also have to explain that because my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has recently appeared in a case which is subject to appeal he did not think it right to take part in today's debate. I must explain, too, that I find myself as the Minister responsible over a wide range of services which thalidomide children need and, therefore, after listening to the debate, I shall seek the permission of the House to wind up at the end.
I know that the House would wish me to compliment the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on his speech. The House will not be surprised to know that I do not feel the freedom that he felt to comment as he did, but on the other hand I feel the necessity to go a good bit wider than he did, and I may therefore take a little longer than he took.
First, I should like to say a few words, in all humility, about the thalidomide families. They are not a homogeneous group. The parents came from a cross-section of the community and they endured a terrible shock. They carry a heavy burden under great strain. Under this burden some families seem in an astonishing way to have been actually strengthened, and some have been broken. Many of them did not know of the services available. How could they? They and their general practitioners had to find out what could be done.
Coming fresh to this group, I have formed an enormous admiration for the parents and their children and for the voluntary services mainly concerned. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to impugn the activities of the Lady Hoare Trust when he said that we all had to blame ourselves. The trust has been a magnificent help to the families. Lady Hoare herself is away at present, but I have met some of her medical-social workers, and today I saw a film


of what the parents and children, helped by all the other services, have been able to do. I saw a film of boys and girls without limbs, yet with a dignity, spontaneity and vitality that is wholly remarkable. I urge hon. Members to see the film as evidence of what can be done.
It is a sober tribute to the achievement of the parents, children, voluntary services and all the other services concerned that no fewer than 90 per cent. of the children concerned are living in their own homes, and 75 per cent. of them are attending ordinary schools. This reflects credit also on the local authorities, the National Health Service, the limb-fitting service and the schools—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on the other children."] I agree with my hon. Friend.
One benefit that has come from this tragedy is that there is now a scrutiny system for medicines. The Committee on the Safety of Medicines is in action, and while no human being can guarantee that there will never in any circumstances be such a disaster again, as a country we are now equipped as well as any in the world, and probably better than most.
I must remind the House that despite the understandable tide of emotion about thalidomide children they are not the only very severely congenitally disabled people. We have to keep a balance in our minds, which are filled with those who are limbless because of the thalidomide drug. There are other children suffering from very severe congenital disabilities also, with great strain on their parents.
I hope that the House will agree that I am not particularly unwilling to meet or listen to cases of need. I am quick to read, to meet, to listen and to visit, but the fact is that until very recently I was not aware of the circumstances in connection with thalidomide children. The Government have made a number of improvements in the benefits and service for the physically and mentally disabled. I shall not list them. There are never enough, but we have made a number of improvements, as is generally acknowledged. However, I was not aware in the front of my mind of this particular group of disabled.
When I asked myself, "Why not?", I uncovered the fact that the group and

the voluntary service that particularly concerns itself with them—Lady Hoare's Trust—has not approached the Government in the past 2½years, except for one letter to me inquiring about the availability of attendance allowance for four children in particular. I am not making any excuse, but simply saying that as a matter of fact—whether because of despair, I do not know—the group, through the voluntary body particularly dedicated to them, have not approached the present Government.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)rose—

Sir K. Joseph: I should just like to finish this sentence before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am not trying to make too much of what I have just said, because if I had been made aware of the group earlier I should not have been able, any more than any of my predecessors, to intervene in the legal case or negotiations, but I might earlier have identified cases where services are not available.

Mr. Heffer: I think the right hon. Gentleman has now clarified the point. During the days of the Labour Government I raised the matter time and time again with Ministers, urging that my own people should do something about it. I was therefore surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not know from his own Department that such approaches had been made, not only by me but by many other hon. Members.

Sir K. Joseph: No Government know anything about the private approaches to their predecessors. We know only the public approaches. I am well aware that hon. Members on both sides have pressed Governments, and I of course entirely accept that individual hon. Members have approached me on technical questions. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has been very persistent about prosthetic arms, for instance. But the general question about thalidomide children has not been raised.
I must state clearly that compensation is not for the Government to provide. There is no legal liability on the Government. There is no implication about a drug because it was prescribed under the National Health Service. There was


no scrutiny system until the Committee on the Safety of Drugs was set up as a result of the thalidomide tragedy. Compensation is a matter for the company.

Mr. David Ginsborg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there would be an obligation on the Government if there were a disaster currently as a result of the Medicines Commission's passing a drug after which there was a similar case? Surely, the Government would be legally and morally involved, with the manufacturer, if such an event occurred.

Sir K. Joseph: It is still the responsibility of the manufacturer to answer for his manufacture, whether there is a scrutiny system or not. By a scrutiny system we provide the public with as much protection as we can, but the responsibility is still upon the manufacturer.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Whether there is or is not a responsibility on the Government is a very arguable matter. There are no party differences here. I refer to successive Governments in this matter. Whether any Government should be setting up an actuarial fund to deal with all such risks is a very arguable matter, I agree. But if the right hon. Gentleman says so categorically that there is no responsibility on the Government in respect of prescribing under the National Health Service, he is underlining—doubly and trebly underlining—the moral responsibilities of the firm, and is therefore really accepting the main principle of our motion.

Sir K. Joseph: I must protect myself from doing that which would be tantamount to intervening in current negotiations and litigation. But hon. Members on both sides have expressed themselves as very concerned about the responsibility of the firm. Those who were desperately worried about what appeared to be deadlock in the negotiations will have noted the new offer as evidence of active negotiations—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to recognise that at this delicate stage of the negotiations between the company and the parents nothing should be said that might discourage the efforts being made by both parties to reach a satisfactory settlement. Ministers cannot intervene in

the litigation or the negotiations, any more than our predecessors were able to.

Mr Frank Tomney: Let us try to fix the responsibility a little earlier. Am I not right in suggesting that the British Medical Association's medical advisory panel cleared the drug in 1958?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman. But the responsibility of the manufacturers seems to have been accepted by them inasmuch as they are now negotiating with the parents. I say again that we should be very wrong to prejudice the progress of those negotiations.
Meanwhile, I must ask the House to allow me to deal with a wider range of needs in addition to compensation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I invited parents who felt that they were lacking services to which they were entitled to write to us. We have had about a dozen letters complaining of various deficiencies, and we are informing ourselves urgently. The local authorities vary very much in the quality of their services, and they face a great many needs. The House will be glad to know that the 25 medical social workers working for the Lady Hoare Trust have offered to send to me a schedule of the services to which they think the thalidomide families are entitled and are not getting. As soon as I get that schedule I shall get in touch with the local authorities concerned. I shall pass the housing needs to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The right hon. Gentleman has been arguing that the Government cannot intervene in litigation. Does he think that it would be so intervening if the Government were now to set up a trust to remove from the parents the financial pressure which is forcing some of them to accept unjust settlements? If the Government set up such a trust the parents would be free to litigate on equal terms.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not prepared to make any imputation about the firm. But surely it would be said by some people, if we were ready to make such imputations, that if the Government accepted responsibility for compensation a firm that so wished could feel less


pressure than there is on the firm at the moment. I am not making such imputations, but the right hon. Lady will admit that some of her hon. Friends might say that.
Apart from services which are primarily the responsibility of local authorities under the various statutes, the Government have introduced the attendance allowance. It was included in legislation by the previous Government but it fell at the General Election. The attendance allowance gives payment to the most severely disabled. However, there are some anomalies which have been brought to the Government's notice. I am asking the Attendance Allowance Board to look at the matter in connection with the very severely disabled thalidomide children who feel that they should get the allowance and are not. About 20,000 children are receiving a tax-free allowance of £5·40 a week. We reckon that from December next year, with the extension of the attendance allowance rules, possibly another 50,000 children, including, it is hoped, all those thalidomide households not now receiving the attendance allowance, will receive the lower rate of attendance allowance.
The House may like to know that in 1974, compared with no expenditure on attendance allowance in 1970, there will be over £15 million in payment for children alone through the attendance allowance.

Mr. William Hamilton: How many children?

Sir K. Joseph: About 70,000 children. I cannot be sure.
There will as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South indicated in due course be the question of jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be much concerned with that matter, as he is generally with employment for the very severely disabled. I know that a number of hon. Members will have read with great sympathy the views of the Disablement Income Group about the need for some special source of income, other than means-tested benefits, for the congenitally disabled. That raises all sorts of difficulties about resources, priorities and techniques. People who are congenitally disabled are

entitled to means-tested benefits. The House can be sure that the Government are studying all the views of the Disablement Income Group and that they will be taken into account.
I have told the House that compensation is for the company. The new offer is an indication of active—

Mr. Harold Wilson: The whole House recognises the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman is approaching the debate. Even if we may disagree with his conclusions, the House will pay tribute to the compassion and the spirit in which he is approaching these questions.
The right hon. Gentleman has just repeated what he said earlier about compensation and the company. He is supporting an amendment which relates to a decision not to take action ahead of the litigation. Is he not aware that there are abundant precedents for this House to act by legislation, even when a matter is sub judicel The House will remember that both the Prime Minister and I commended that the House should act in a serious matter in Northern Ireland which was sub judice, being subject to appeal, about the role of the troops under the Special Powers Act. We legislated to put the matter beyond all doubt before the matter came to final appeal.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many cases of tax avoidance where the courts have given a ruling contrary to the expectation of the Inland Revenue, and perhaps of Parliament, and where there has been legislation before others could cash in? Will he please put out of his mind the feeling that, whatever he may think about litigation, it is not within the competence of the House to legislate either to compel compensation or to set up a special fund, or some combination of the two?

Sir K. Joseph: I accept all that. I am not taking a legalistic view. There are two reasons why legislation, as recommended by the Motion, is unsuitable. First, it might prejudice the negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because hon. Members who choose to be rude about the company keep on saying—it is their words that I am using, and not mine—that a company that wishes to


avoid responsibility might welcome the responsibility being taken by the taxpayer. Secondly, desperate though the poignancy of the thalidomide children is, there are many other children equally disabled.

Mr. Leo Abse: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to intervene in the litigation. However, will he be prepared to consult the Lord Chancellor? Many people are concerned about engaging in litigation on equal terms. If the case goes to court it will involve hundreds of thousands of pounds. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that he will be prepared to discuss the issue with the Lord Chancellor and ensure that no pressure will be brought upon any of these litigants through the Law Society and the Legal Aid Fund to compromise the claim, so that the company knows that if necessary every one of the legally aided parents can go into court. If the company knows that, and knows that the Government are prepared to go that far, it will be coerced into recognising its maximum liability to those affected.

Sir K. Joseph: I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in response to a letter from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has already discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor. He has been able to satisfy himself that there is no question of the legal aid facilities being withdrawn. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the categoric assurance that he wants. Discussions have already taken place between the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): The right hon. Gentleman has repeated that there is a comparison between the thalidomide children and other children who are also, because of genetic difficulty, born without limbs and so on. But does he agree that we are not comparing like with like? In one instance there is the kind of risk that can happen to any family, which is something for which human beings have no responsibility. In the other instance, there is the direct causal effect that the drug was known to cause these tremendous damages. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is saying, in effect, that there

should be no legal obligation if somebody is injured by a motor car—

Sir K. Joseph: No. The hon. Gentleman forgets that it is precisely for the reason that he is saying that the company is now accepting responsibility for making payments in compensation.

Mr. William Price: Mr. William Price (Rugby)rose—

Sir K. Joseph: No, I will not give way. I have something to say which the House will want to hear before I sit down. I must say again, so that I do not lose the thread of the argument, that compensation is for the company and that the new offer indicates active negotiation.
The Government must recognise that there are others born with desperate congenital disabilities which gravely burden their families and which are as severe as the loss of limbs due to thalidomide. Such families are inevitably involved in all manner of special needs. Many of these needs are the responsibility of statutory authorities but there are other forms of help outside these responsibilities which could improve the life of a child and reduce the burden on its family. The Government accept that more needs to be done for children with very severe congenital disability whether or not caused by the taking of thalidomide.
In many cases the parents need more help in shouldering the various burdens which caring for these children entails. I have already paid tribute to the remarkable achievements of many of the parents concerned. The Government have therefore decided to make the sum of £3 million available for this purpose, virtually at once. It is not intended that this money should be by way of compensation for being disabled, but rather that it should serve to complement the services already being provided by statutory and voluntary bodies to help the families concerned.
With this in mind the Government will begin at once to consider, in consultation with the statutory and voluntary bodies likely to be concerned, what arrangements they can set up so that the money can best be used for the benefit of the children and their parents. The House can be assured that this will be carried out as quickly as possible. Further, in the light of experience with this operation


and as soon as the cases are no longer sub judice the Government will consider whether to provide a similar further amount of money in trust.
I must emphasise that I am talking about children congenitally disabled—and by that I mean with very severe congenital disabilities found to be present at birth or immediately after. What we have in mind are children suffering from the most severe conditions analagous to the lack of limbs, such as those suffering from the extremely damaging forms of, for instance, spina bifida. We have some difficulty, because we must make a definition. Because we have in mind the sort of children mentioned by the hon. Member, I have had to exclude from this undertaking those who are born blind or those who are very shortly after birth discovered to be totally deaf. There has to be some limitation.
I come now to the motion and the amendment. Because we do not believe as the Opposition motion presses, that we should legislate at once, or that we should weaken the pressure on the parties to reach a satisfactory settlement, I ask the House not to approve the motion. The motion as amended, in the light of what I have been able to announce today, does meet the three tests which I believe all hon. Members should set. The amended motion does not prejudice the settlement; it does not wholly and in the light of what I have announced, leave out the other very severely congenitally disabled. It provides help now for thalidomide families, those who need help complementary to that provided by the local authorities in their noble effort to bring up these children. I hope that the House will not accept the motion. I hope that if it is pressed my hon. Friends will vote against it and support the amendment.

4.34 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I feel sure that everyone will be grateful to the Opposition for having provided this half-day debate and will bitterly regret the fact that the Government have not been able to make it into a whole day. Because there are clearly so many hon. Members who wish to speak and so many points that we could pursue, I will try to be brief as possible. I believe, with my hon.
Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), in that superb and moving speech of his, that we all bear some history of responsibility. Looking back we can all be aware that we have shared in the national lethargy on this subject until it was brought vividly to our attention in recent months.
Surely the fact that we accept our past misdemeanour heightens the need for action now? We cannot now say that we do not know. This is the division between us today. In our motion we call for immediate action, for immediate legislation, for the immediate establishment of a trust fund. The Government's only answer for that is to say, "No, we must wait".

Mr. Fell: That is not so.

Mrs. Castle: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great care. I do not know what it is we are supposed to be waiting for. We are told that we must wait and we cannot have the trust fund until the litigation is over, until the whole issue is settled.

Mr. Fell: My right hon. Friend has just said that he is setting up a fund which may be drawn on when necessary.

Mrs. Castle: I will come to the right hon. Gentleman's announcement in a moment. I am talking about the major issue that is set out in the motion and rejected in the amendment—whether we should have immediate legislation on the matters which have proved to be so urgent. One of the reasons why the Government have said "We can afford to wait, why should we set up a proper trust fund?" is that they are giving, they say, such massive help through the social services.
We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement about this £3 million which the Government are to find for all the congenitally disabled, for a general category of people. But this £3 million offer is not good enough—any more than is the Distillers' additional £2 million offer—to make our motion unnecessary.
I want to concentrate on some points about which I have had correspondence with the Prime Minister but before doing so let me refer briefly to the social services. In his opening remarks the right hon. Gentleman admitted that in dealing


with this kind of desperately severely disabled case there are serious gaps in our social services and that the parents of a number of children are still being told that they have to wait.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Josephrose—

Mrs. Castle: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman my examples before he intervenes. I am anxious not to take up too much time.

Sir K. Joseph: I said that local authorities varied enormously in their services. I have had letters from parents who say that they have had all the help they could possibly ask for from their local authorities. In some cases that is not true; in others it is.

Mrs. Castle: If the right hon. Gentleman had saved the time of the House by waiting, as I asked him, he would have heard of three examples which I am about to give. I will quote two, which he has mentioned. First of all there is the attendance allowance. He has admitted that a number of these thalidomide children do not qualify under the present definition of "constant attendance by day and by night". He has admitted that a number of them will have to wait until December, 1973, before qualifying. That has been a gap. Whoever may have been responsible, it is a gap.
Then he talked about the arguments of the Disablement Income Group and its plea on behalf of all severely disabled people who cannot qualify under an insurance scheme. The Group argues that we should accept the need for a disablement income. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will consider very carefully what the group has said. We have at the moment a Social Security Bill going through the House which carefully omits to provide a disablement income for this category of persons. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept an amendment to include this provision in the Bill. If he had made an announcement today that he intended to do that, then that would have been a change of policy which would have had a fundamental effect.
I refer to a third point because I have been asked to do so by the mother of a thalidomide child. It concerns the

question of transport. I know that a certain amount of help with transport has been given to the parents of these unhappy children. I propose to read from the letter sent to me by the mother of a 10-year-old boy who has no lower limbs and precious little of what we would call arms. She writes:
I have a small, second-hand car, bought solely for the purpose of transporting Anthony to limb fitting centres, shopping, visiting his school friends, etc., outings which with a normal healthy boy would raise no problems. All I want is help with the Road Tax for my car. Believe me, I have endeavoured to obtain this, but without success. The last letter received was a masterpiece—help could possibly be received when Anthony was 16 and able to hold a driving licence! The child will never be in a position to drive a car".
We are all familiar with the problem of mobility for disabled people.
No doubt the Secretary of State will say that he has set up the committee under the chairmanship of Lady Sharp. I am aware of that. All I am saying is that there are serious gaps in provision through the social services. I hope that when we get Lady Sharp's report the Government will announce that they are prepared to act on it. We must not be complacent about the adequacy of our social services in dealing with the victims of disablement. That is all the more reason why we should use the resources and authority of the State to help to secure a reasonable settlement of the tragic cases we are discussing.
All that we have had from the Minister is a repetition of the Government's argument that they cannot intervene because the case is sub judice. But the Distillers Company has never accepted legal liability. All its offers have been made in discharge of what it calls its moral responsibility. When the Government say that they cannot even comment on the talks which are taking place, let alone do anything, such as setting up a trust fund, which might prejudice them, they are saying, in effect, that they refuse to comment on whether the Distillers Company has discharged its moral responsibility. That response is totally inadequate.
There was incidentally a remarkable change of argument by the Government when the Secretary of State told us that the Government could not set up a trust fund now because it might prejudice,


not the position of the Distillers Company in the discussions, but the position of the parents of the thalidomide children.

Mr. Fell: Are not they more important?

Mrs. Castle: Of course they are. But has the Secretary of State asked the parents what they want the Government to do? Some of us have been in close contact with the parents, and carrying this motion would give them new heart and hope.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the answer to the Minister's argument that, if the Government were to set up a trust fund by legislation and to take over, for the trustees of the fund, the rights of the parents and children against the Distillers Company, the legal proceedings could continue as long as was necessary without pressure being brought to bear on the parents to settle?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is right, and it is on that point that I wish to concentrate.
We are taking a ludicrously unrealistic attitude to the question of who is pressurising whom. The simple fact is that the parents of these children have been under financial and legal pressure and pressure by their solicitors—indeed, pressure on every front—to settle on terms which they bitterly resented as being inadequate. The question which we must ask is whether or not it is our duty to step in and insulate them against pressures which are leading to unjust settlements.

Mr. Clinton Davis: What has been exercising my mind is how a distinction can be drawn in principle between a situation such as that which arose at Aberfan, where a disaster fund was immediately established yet litigation was contemplated and indeed ensued, and the matter we are considering. I fail to see the distinction.

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree. It is all the more essential that we should take the financial pressure off parents to settle hurriedly and inadequately because of all the other pressures to which they have been subjected. I maintain what I said at Question Time on another occasion: all the resources of the powerful Distillers Company are being used to pressurise the

parents into accepting a settlement which they feel is unjust.
When I intervened at Question Time a few days ago I gave the Prime Minister examples of what I meant. I sent him a letter reiterating them and spelling them out. One of the examples I gave came directly within the Government's responsibility because public funds were involved. It concerned the question of legal aid about which the Prime Minister said the Lord Chancellor had given satisfactory assurances. He has not given them to me. I sent to the Prime Minister evidence showing that a number of parents have been threatened with the withdrawal of their legal aid certificates because they refused to accept the advice of their solicitors to accept the settlement.
I offered to provide names and asked for an assurance that none of the parents would risk losing legal aid. I received a reply from the Lord Chancellor's office asking me to send particulars. I replied at once sending details of three cases in which the people concerned were prepared for all the details to come under scrutiny. I offered to supply more names, but I was told that that would not be necessary. Today I have had a reply from the Prime Minister telling me, quite correctly, that the decision to discharge a legal aid certificate rests with an area committee, and he explained that
…if as a result of the information it has received it considers that the assisted person has required the proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to put an unjustifiable expense on the Legal Aid Fund
the area committee might withdraw the certificate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I am told that in the present case no report has been made to the area committee which would enable it to act under this Regulation…".
But the Prime Minister misses the point. He is tragically out of touch with what is happening to certain parents. The fact that no approach has been made to the area committee does not mean that parents have not been pressurised. The pressure lies in the threat of withdrawal made by their solicitors.
I sent the right hon. Gentleman the details of three cases. Yet he has sent me this incredible reply:
I know of no justification for the suggestion that any of the parents have been threatened with the withdrawal of their certificates.


The Prime Minister knows of no cases. Does he not know, or does he not want to know? I have sent him the names of three parents who are willing to swear an affidavit that they have been so threatened by their solicitors.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): It is the right hon. Lady who is missing the point. I told her the position. The Lord Chancellor has advised me that only the area committee can withdraw, or threaten to withdraw, a certificate. No cases have been raised in the area committees. Therefore, as the right hon. Lady is in touch with the parents concerned, it is right for her to reply to them that they cannot be threatened effectively with the withdrawal of a certificate unless it is done by the area committee, because the area committee is the only body which can withdraw a certificate The right hon. Lady can give a full assurance to those parents that, unless the area committee comes to the conclusion that the parents have behaved, in the accepted phrase, unreasonably, there is absolutely no danger of their having their certificates withdrawn.
Naturally it is fully accepted in the House that when a Minister replies to an hon. Member the hon. Member then communicates that information to the person involved. It was not for me to communicate direct when the right hon. Lady had been so kind as to send me the details. She can tell the parents that nothing has been raised with an area committee and that area committees are the only bodies which can threaten—which they would not do—or actually withdraw a certificate, and no cases have been raised with them.

Mrs. Castle: The whole argument whether parents need the moral and financial support of a trust fund rests on the sort of treatment they have had in trying to press their legitimate claims. The simple fact is that during the past 10 years pressure of this kind has been made, and made successfully. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether a fund were needed and whether the parents wanted it, he might, for instance, have arranged for the three parents whose names I sent him to be interviewed. I can give him details of a fourth case.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is now completely changing her

ground. I am dealing with the specific case of the withdrawal of a legal aid certificate. The right hon. Lady has been given every assurance, which she can pass on to the parents, that it cannot be done except by an area committee which is satisfied that the parents have been themselves unreasonable. If any solicitor who is serving these parents makes a threat of that kind, the parents can tell the solicitor that it is unjustified and they can themselves take action with the area committee. Let the right hon. Lady stick to that point.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until we on this side of the House started to ventilate these cases even that assurance was not forthcoming and there was no public or moral support for these people in their one-sided battle?
Let me give the Prime Minister a fourth example where his assurances have come too late. It is the case of a Mrs. Clark who is at this moment in the Public Gallery and who is one of the parents who was pressurised into accepting the 1968 settlement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The right hon. Lady should not refer to people in the public Gallery.

Mrs. Castle: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I withdraw that. I will repeat that Mrs. Clark is just one of the cases that were pressurised into accepting the 1968 settlement. This is what Mrs. Clark wrote to me:
When, for reasons which are too complicated for this letter, we tried to go to the Press with the evidence that certain matters were being withheld we were told by our QC that if we persited we could have our legal aid certificates withdrawn, which obviously meant no case. Who could afford to fight? The Sunday Times and Telegraph in 1968 attempted to draw attention to several incidents, including those involving us personally. My daughter Heather was the first girl of the 62 to go into court. In other words, she set the precedent for the girls. We asked to see Mr. Ackner's pleadings for her"—
Mr. Ackner was the QC—
and the replies. We even asked for a resume' to have an idea of what he had stated. This request and others were refused on the grounds that ' there was only one copy '. Naturally we informed our solicitors of the grand invention, the photostat machine, and offered to pay for copies but were refused. The 40 per cent.


settlement was done in a room with all parents of the 62 after much changing of dates and venue. At the end of three hours, Mr. Ackner doing his utmost to convince us that we were wrong to go further with the cases, he suggested we accept 40 per cent. of an unknown figure and at the end of the three hours we were given a paper to sign of acceptance. People signed like lambs. They were told there was no alternative ".

Mr. David Waddington: I know that the right hon. Lady wishes to be fair. She commenced this part of her argument by saying that all the resources of the company had been used to pressurise the parents. Surely all she has said in the last few minutes is that the lawyers acting for the parents have pressurised. Where is the evidence that the company has pressurised the parents? Will the right hon. Lady, in the interests of historical accuracy, because this is a point that has not yet been made on the Floor of the House, acknowledge that any offer made by the company must have been an offer not so much coming from the company as coming from the company's insurers and the company cannot have made any offer unless the insurer had allowed it to make the offer?

Mrs. Castle: In recent years attempts have been made by a number of newspapers to bring these matters to the public's attention. Tribute has been paid to The Sunday Times; it has certainly done an outstanding job. Other newspapers, uneasy and unhappy, have tried to raise these cases and have always come up against reactions from Distillers (Biochemicals) Ltd. which have tended to keep these facts dark.
I come to another example of the Prime Minister's complacency. I gave him another example of the way in which parents were being pressurised, the way in which five parents who held out against acceptance of the proposed settlement were taken to court by their own solicitors as no longer acting in their children's best interests. These parents were actually replaced by the Official Solicitor as their children's next friend in law. If Lord Denning had not reversed this decision on appeal, those parents would not still be righting now.
I put this in my letter to the Prime Minister just as I put it in my supple-

mentary question in the House. The Prime Minister's reply to me was:
… what happened was that the great majority of the parents felt it was wrong that a small minority should be able to prevent all the children from benefiting from the proposed trust fund. I think this feeling was readily understandable and it was a representative of the majority of the parents, and not, as you say, the solicitors acting for the minority, who took the initiative in seeking to bring in the Official Solicitor.
This morning I read the extract from the Prime Minister's letter to the parent of one of these thalidomide children—Mr. Mason, who had taken the initiative, first in resisting the settlement and, secondly, in taking the matter to appeal. Mr. Mason's comment to me was very restrained in the circumstances; he told me that the Prime Minister was "totally incorrect".
I will explain what Mr. Mason told me actually happened. It was Mr. Mason, a man of some resources and, therefore, greater freedom of action than most of these parents have had, who fought the ruling that the majority of these applications were out of time. The other parents had been told it was too late after the 1968 settlement. Mr. Mason fought it because he had funds. He won it. It was he who won leave to issue a writ. It was he who chose Messrs. Kimber Bull & Co. as solicitors because they handled the original 1968 offer.
When in June of this year Distillers made its second offer, the one which worked out at an average payment of £8,000 per child, Mr. Mason took the initiative in rejecting it. He did not regard £8,000 as good enough for a child without arms or legs. It was Distillers who insisted on an all-or-nothing settlement. This is another piece of the pres-surisation which has taken place. Mr. Mason said, "If the others want to settle, then they can go ahead, I do not want to stand in their way. But, by heaven, my child has no arms or legs and I am going on to fight."
It was Kimber Bull & Co. which threatened to make his daughter a ward of court because he was not taking the £8,000 offer lying down. It was Mr. Mason who fought the application for the appeal against the introduction of the Official Solicitor. He fought the matter with his own money and risked facing legal costs amounting to several thousand


pounds. Five parents backed him and they won and got their costs. They won overwhelmingly, and Lord Denning said that it was not unreasonable for those parents to want to continue to fight for their children's interests. But other parents have been in no position to take these financial risks
Mr. Mason has now new solicitors, but he is still facing endless obstacles in pressing his claim. The new solicitors wrote to Kimber Bull & Co. asking it to transfer the existing papers relating to Mr. Mason's case in respect of his daughter. They were refused—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they were refused. And we are talking about not pressurising Distillers! We have left these parents alone and helpless for years.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Lady will give way before she goes any further. Nothing she has said so far has in any way contradicted the information I gave on the best advice available in my reply to her—not one single thing. Of course, it is true that the case was taken to the court, that it was appealed against by the minority of the parents, and that they won. I said that myself and nothing she has said has contradicted that. But the point I wish to make is this. I hope that she is not suggesting that any of the lawyers—be they solicitors or members of the Bar who advised the parents, whether they be those who have settled, or the majority who have not yet been able to settle, or the minority who do not wish to settle, or the Official Solicitor—have in any way been influenced by the Government or a Government Department or any Minister. There is not one shred of evidence of that. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Lady will stop accusing me of being complacent about this matter, or will stop implying that the Government have a responsibility for legal advice which is given to parents, whoever they may be. If she is making that implication, it is a most disgraceful suggestion.

Mrs. Castle: Really! The right hon. Gentleman is justifying my strictures on him this afternoon. Of course, I am not saying that I am holding the Government responsible for solicitors' advice. All I am saying is how right the parents were to resist. And let us remember that

because they rejected an average settlement of £8,000 they were threatened with having their children made wards of court and the Official Solicitor was wheeled in. Let us also remember that the very threat of a House of Commons debate has forced Distillers to increase its offer still further to £5 million. So who were right—the parents or the solicitors who brought pressure upon them?
The point I wish to make to the right hon. Gentleman is this. This has been an unequal and unfair fight, and it is time we threw the authority of the House of Commons into the situation so that the parents are relieved of their financial anxieties and so that they are put into a position to fight. If an average payment of £8,000 in June is now admitted by Distillers to be inadequate, let us keep up the pressure, set up a fund and we may then see that £5 million offer turned into £15 million before long—certainly something far nearer to the human justice which we need to have.
I want now to conclude because so many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course hon. Members opposite want me to conclude but the parents know that these are the things they have asked me to put before the House.
I conclude by outlining the final struggles of Mr. Mason on behalf of his daughter who, as I have said, is without arms and legs. I have already said that the transfer of the papers in her case was refused. Therefore in desperation the solicitors turned to the Chailey Heritage Hospital where Mr. Mason's daughter Louise has been since birth. I wish to say at this point that in talking to me about his daughter's case Mr. Mason expressed nothing but admiration for the Chailey Heritage Hospital. This is what he said to me about that hospital:
They are a fantastic body of people and I have nothing but admiration for them.
But when his solicitors wrote to the medical administrator of the hospital asking for a complete medical report on his daughter and a history of the injuries which Louise had sustained from birth, he received the following reply from the medical administrator. Let us remember that the solicitor had not been able to get the papers from the former solicitor and that this was the only hope open


to Mr. Mason to obtain evidence about his daughter's case. The letter said:
Re Louise Mason. In reply to your letter of 3rd November, asking for a medical report on this child, I think it might be better if I passed this on to one of my colleagues here. I was in fact involved in the original case, and I was the paediatrician retained by the Distillers Company, and I think it might be rather invidious if I get involved at this juncture in this claim.
Can we be surprised if these parents of thalidomide children feel that they live in a Kafka-like world where everywhere they turn for justice the tentacles of Distillers spread before them and when even the man in the hospital who is in charge of one of the victims has been retained by these people.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)rose—

Mrs. Castle: No, I am sorry, I have not time to give way. I say that a policy of non-intervention by the House is not good enough. I say to the Government that to say that we must wait for a settlement before we can do anything is to condemn these unfortunate parents to impotence. Once the case is settled by this type of force majeure, can anyone doubt that the Distillers Company will lose interest? We shall have lost the lever of public opinion which we can bring to bear against the company and the burden on all our consciences will be "Too late, too late".

5.8 p.m.

Mr. John Astor: Following the speech made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), I hope to reintroduce a more conciliatory note into the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] First I should like to say how fortunate I am to be the first backbencher to be called from the Conservative benches, because I am sure that I have the support of all my hon. Friends when I offer congratulations to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on the way in which he introduced the motion at the Opposition Dispatch Box. We all greatly respect the work he does for disabled people and we fully recognise his sincerity.
Everybody in the House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern expressed in the motion about thalidomide children.
Indeed, the official Opposition motion appears to have had its origin in an all-party early day motion which was tabled at the beginning of the Session and which has been signed by 265 hon. Members from all parts of the House. That figure shows how widespread is the concern for disabled people, and it also shows that the great majority of the hon. Members consider that these problems of disablement should be treated on a non-party, or perhaps I should say on an all-party, basis of responsibility.
I hope that during the rest of the debate the rather conciliatory tone which prevailed in the opening speeches will be resumed, because I am certain from the experience I have had as a member of the all-party Disablement Group, in co-operation with Opposition Members and many of my hon. Friends, that the degree of co-operation and non-party feuding which we have achieved has been of great benefit to disabled people.
Naturally, I sympathise with a great deal of the thought behind the motion, but I recognise, in practice, as a lot of fair-minded people will, how much my right hon. Friend has already done, not only in respect of thalidomide children but for disabled generally, and how much he is still doing, and will continue to do.
I recognise that the thalidomide children are a very special group, struck by a terrible tragedy which affected their families as well as themselves. Unfortunately, such tragedies are not confined to the effects of thalidomide, and, as my right hon. Friend said, there are other groups of people and children who suffer from accident or congenital deformity whose cases are just as tragic. We should not lose sight of that. This is one reason, I believe, for not being impetuous about setting up a fund in the terms of the motion, so that all aspects of the matter may be properly and carefully considered, for the strains on these other families and the difficulties that they experience are just as great in their own way.
Although Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited has been criticised, I at least welcome the fact that it has felt able to increase the value of the offer which it originally made, and also to relax the conditions of acceptance of its offer. I am pleased that this move has been made,


also, because it now looks as though, if the parents decide to accept the new offer, the end of this long drawn-out negotiation is at last in sight.
Whether the present offer is fair and reasonable is a matter of opinion, and people will vary in their judgment as to whether it is generous or mean. But I think it difficult, without having detailed knowledge of each individual case, to make that judgment, just as it is extremely difficult to assess human tragedy in terms of cash. What is, perhaps, more significant is that no one, whatever figure he picks on at this stage, can accurately foretell whether that sum will be adequate to meet the needs of these children as they grow up and move through later life. We hope that they will have a normal span of life. But we do not know how far ahead we shall provide them with support. We do not know what technology will produce in the way of new sophisticated electrical equipment which could be of benefit to them, or what its development will be.
There are so many uncertainties that I do not see how anyone could establish a figure which would be adequate for all time. This is why I feel that we must adopt a more flexible approach, and that is the main reason why I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for repeating the promise made by the Prime Minister that, as soon as the litigation is out of the way, he will give full consideration to the setting up of a national fund to provide the additional services, equipment and support which will be needed in future years.
We all welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon of the availability of £3 million very soon to meet the most immediate needs. He has undertaken, also, to investigate any individual cases in which it is claimed that these children are not receiving the support which they need.
I am sure that the whole House, backed by public opinion, would wish all possible support to be given to these children during their education, in their job training and job opportunities, and in their general living conditions, to ensure that they may live as full and independent a life as they can and to ensure that we do all we can to overcome the handicaps with

which they were unfortunately born. I am sure, also, that we should seek to relieve the parents at least of the financial anxiety in so far as it is within our power to do so.
I listened with care to my right hon. Friend's opening speech, and from the assurances which he gave I am entirely satisfied that he will do all in his power to see that the wishes of the House and of the country are fulfilled in giving full support to this group of children and, indeed, to the wider groups of disabled people generally.
I hope that, in order to preserve the genuine feeling of mutual concern on a non-party basis, the Opposition may yet feel that the amendment, coupled with my right hon. Friend's opening speech, will satisfy them. If there is a Division, it will be a division of emphasis, I think, rather than a division of good will, for I believe that good will will continue to exist on both sides of the House. I certainly greatly hope that it will be in the interests—the primary interest with which we are concerned—of the welfare of disabled people, and the thalidomide children in particular.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: I wish to broaden one aspect of the matter which has not yet been touched upon. There are tragedies which have lain upon the conscience of the world like a scourge. One was the terrible sufferings of the Jews in the concentration camps. Another was the massacre at Katyn. Another was Stalin's deliberate murder of the peasants in the early years of the Russian Revolution. But it is a purely civilian tragedy with which the House is now concerned—the tragedy of thalidomide—and whether it could or should have been avoided is one of the questions which I shall consider.
We are living in a complex scientific world—a world becoming more complex every day—in which life is becoming scientifically based, in which politicians and lawyers have very little knowledge of some of the influences and developments at work, yet one in which responsibility for the administration of the changes and problems brought about by science falls directly upon the legislative assemblies of the nations.
The knowledge which is forthcoming, and the pace at which it is forthcoming, is both disconcerting and dangerous. I am sure that the House will agree about that, with the present tragedy in mind.
We cannot grasp the scale and range of drug manufacture now, totalling as it does about £7,000 million in turnover throughout the world. One company follows another in what is called molecular roulette. A company takes another's product and tries to add something to it or subtract something from it, just to corner the market and sell its own new product. The thalidomide tragedy was a tragedy of that kind.
Medicine is a biological science and, as such, it is based on observation. A basic tenet of that principle of observation is the rejection of authority—a refusal to accept something just because someone said so, or reckoned it to be so. The true scientist wants confirmation of any statement by independent means of verification. I shall show that all the signals and all the danger flags were flying in this tragedy, yet, apparently, no one took much notice.
I have in my private files details of the cases to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred. I was glad that she dealt with them so adequately, for it was necessary that these personal cases should be brought out.
We have only to look at what happened in Germany where the federal tax laws on drug control were very slack. The Chemie Griinenthal company, which was the first to manufacture thalidomide, time and again refused to accept scientific critical papers for examination and investigation.
A remarkable Penguin book has recently been published. If what is stated in it is untrue, it is actionable for libel. It is called "Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies" and is written by two Swedes, Henning Sjostrom and Robert Nilsson. The story related in this book is frightening. This is why some of us are afraid now. We do not want this kind of legal manoeuvre repeated in this country by any company, no matter how powerful or what its base is. The Distillers base is well known—it is whisky.
There will have to be an action in the courts, and that action will have to be conclusive. No Statute of Limitations should debar anybody whose child has been crippled for life claiming damages. The parents themselves have to bear the burden.
No man can really understand or conjecture the psychological change in a woman who is bearing a child when that child is born and suffers in these circumstances. No compensation can wipe out the memory of that first vital hour, which can destroy the mentality of any woman. So let us have no fiddling, no ducking, no legal arguments, no turning back. Let us say that if money is to be the answer in this case it must be as high an amount as possible to reduce the suffering which will come in later years.
We know that as far back as 1952, according to the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, a drug called Aminopterim was used in 12 cases of therapeutic abortion. This drug is derived from glutamic acid, which is the main ingredient of thalidomide.
There was an unknown, unobserved, scientific doctor attached to the Food and Drugs Administration of the United States Government—Dr. Frances Kelsey. The alarm bell started to ring in her mind when this drug was brought to the American market and she refused to give it clearance, despite fantastic pressures put upon her to break her will and to allow this drug on the American market. It reads like a horror story. However, she stuck out. She would not countenance it. It the end President Kennedy awarded her the highest American civilian decoration for saving countless numbers of American women from this tragedy.
The warning flags were flying at that time. What really gets me is why we did not know. I have tried to get information about the responsibilities of the BMA, its clearance committee and advisory panel. I was not very successful.
In 1961 the Distillers Company was advising medical men that Distaval, the trade name of this drug in Great Britain,
'can be given with complete safety to pregnant women and nursing mothers without adverse effect on mother or child'. Unfortunately in the event doctors relied upon these assurances given by the company.


In most scientific journals and branches of science knowledge is made readily available for examination and criticism. I believe that in this instance somebody should have been aware of this knowledge. Has the BMA no readers, analysts or examiners? I repeat the question which I put to the Minister earlier, which has not yet been answered: was this drug given clearance in 1961 when it was offered over the counter for sale, less purchase tax?

Dr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although the medical profession bears responsibility, there were doctors who did not prescribe Distaval? They watched the flags which were flying and obeyed the signals.

Mr. Tomney: I am grateful to hear that from my hon. Friend, who is a respected member of the medical profession.
Who made up the board of the BMA? Who are these eminent gentlemen? According to "Who's Who", the chairman of the board has a page of small italic print to himself. How any man can undertake so much I do not know. I know what we have to do within our compass and how busy we can become. So, whether it is neglect, whether the BMA did not know or had not sufficient researchers or advisers to find out, we will never know.
Arising from this tragedy, the Medicines Act 1968 has now afforded us protection against an issue which concerns the whole world. It is no longer an issue concerning Germany, Great Britain or the United States; it is an issue concerning the whole world. There-ford somebody somewhere had better set up an authoritative international committee with geneticists, analysts and pharmacists who can say that so much of this kind of production is based on competition and has little medical or therapeutic value. Let us follow narrow defined channels strictly in the interests of the patient. This must be done, because this thing is so vast.

Mr. David Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because what I am about to say is by way of helping him. I must declare an interest in the pharmaceutical industry. At the time that thalidomide

was put on the market, no tests were being carried out in the drug industry on the effect of drugs on a foetus. Today, as a result of this tragedy, such tests are required to be carried out before any drugs can be marketed.

Mr. Tomney: I concede the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, it is bolting the door after the horse has gone.
Dr. Kelsey was alerted because peripheral neuritis was associated with the conditions which have been produced in thalidomide children. So the warning flag was obvious at that early date.
In order to make sure that this kind of tragedy is never foisted on the British public again, we must charge an international body with this responsibility.
The Distillers Company, whose main occupation is marketing whisky with an annual turnover of £453 million and a net profit of £64 million, is now most intimately concerned with the question of damages, and damages in a case like this just cannot be assessed.
I am amazed at the law history of this case. If I were a lawyer of the age at which men produce offspring, I should be chary about going into the courts to defend a case like this. At the back of my mind I should have the thought that it might have been my wife or my child. Instead of indulging in all the legal niceties and legal tenets, and addressing one another as "My lord "or" My learned friend', those concerned should look again at what should be done in a case like this. We have to think about Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe, the Lord Chancellor, the Statute of Limitations, the three year period, the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred, the people who have missed the boat, those who have been pressurised into missing the boat and those who could not even afford to get on the boat.
There is a responsibility on us in Parliament, but the law courts as such must have known that this was a case in a million. They should have known that this was something new and somebody, somewhere, should have come to the Lord Chancellor and to Parliament and said "There is existing law under which this case can be settled but we do not think, in all humanity, that the law


meets the situation", and of course it does not.
But that was not done, and we have heard this afternoon of the misjudgments of some learned judges and of awards of £8,000 to £12,000 to children who have to suffer this penalty throughout their lives. These awards are ridiculous. There was no provision in British law to meet the situation. The matter should have come to this Chamber, and we should have made the necessary legislation available to deal with the issue.
We should make sure now that if it can be proved and held that Distillers are responsible they are made to pay, and pay heavily. A man is responsible for the issue of his own folly, and the folly in this case was profit. Instead of advancing arguments about briefing counsel or anybody else, Distillers and the directors should say that this was a tragedy, that it was of their making and that they accept responsibility for it.

5.33 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I appreciated the wide-reaching and thoughtful way in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) presented the motion.
As a first step may I say that I appreciate not only the welcome money which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made available but also the humane and understanding way in which he has approached this problem. This is not a party political problem, and it is right that we should be discussing it today. It is a difficult problem to discuss, because it is easy for us to get carried away by the emotional issues—and this is a very emotional issue—and overlook some of the real problems that underlie them.
I say that because, medically, I have had to examine all the 60 cases which have so far been before the courts. I think I ought to be open about that. I have been through this court procedure on behalf of the parents. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) mentioned certain solicitors by name. My experience with them was that they could not have been more humane, painstaking and kindly in their approach, but the right hon. Lady may have examples of their actions which do

not fit in with what I have seen them doing.
I am accustomed to seeing handicapped children, and it worries me a great deal when people say that thalidomide children are essentially the same as other handicapped children. I thought, when I went to examine them, that I should find them the same as other handicapped children, but I was shocked at the effect they had on me. They are different. I suggest to the House that it is a shock which we all share and there are various reasons for it and for their being essentially different.
First, the cause is different. Several hon. Members have already referred to this. Knowing the cause, our attitudes are bound to be different. The attitudes of parents are also different, with the result that the stress for them has been greater than for parents of other handicapped children. As a society I feel sure that we have a moral and general responsibility for what has gone on.
Another difference is that in these cases the parents themselves very often asked for the drug. For various reasons, which are too complicated to go into, they frequently demanded from their doctors that they should have what was called this safe drug. Later on, when the drug turned out to be anything but safe, they felt doubly guilty.
Then there is the fact that at the time doctors themselves—and here I include myself—believed this to be not just a safe drug, but an outstandingly safe one, so that if patients were reluctant to take it I would put a bit of pressure on them because I felt it was so much safer than their favourite remedies—only to be proved tragically wrong.
There is another side to the majority of these handicapped children and that is that they are of normal intelligence. With other handicappeds it is unusual to see a severely damaged child with normal or well above normal intelligence. Some of these thalidomide children are highly intelligent, and I assure hon. Members that it is a most distressing experience to hear these highly intelligent 8, 9 and 10-year old children talking about their handicaps, their hopes for the future and their awareness that their future will not be normal.
This degree of intelligence has been particularly upsetting for the parents. It has meant that these children have been very critical—and as a member of society I am ashamed to say rightly critical—of the appalling artificial limbs with which we have presented them. One sees a small child coming into a room looking like a deep-sea diver dressed up in a mechanical abortion, and at the first opportunity he throws the whole lot off because he says it is intolerable to him. Those who have feet have developed the most outstanding ability to feed themselves, to write, to unlock doors and to undertake a great range of activities to show how clever they are. All this is very disturbing to the parents who have to look after them.
Lastly on that side, they need special educational equipment, much more freely than we have given them so far. Despite the efforts to provide equipment, for which my right hon. Friend rightly draws some credit, many of these children are still not getting the mechanical devices, let alone the other things, which they need.
For some reason which nobody knows, thalidomide children sweat excessively. This does not sound very worrying but it is an appalling problem for someone who is tied up in a lot of equipment and makes him increasingly aware of his handicap and difficulties.
We do not know what the future holds but the court accepted that puberty was likely to be a disturbing time for these children and they are now beginning to move into that age. The court also accepted that there would be difficulties when they arrived at their later teens, when they began to realise that they would never get married, or were unlikely to get married, that they would never have normal jobs, and that as most of them were sterile they would never have children. When these things start to come home to them it will be difficult to say what financial assistance they should have to offset that kind of disability.
Some of the children are not only outwardly damaged to a major degree: they have some very subtle disturbances. For instance, of the 60 no fewer than four, and perhaps six, are autistic children, which is a very rare condition. We have spent a lot of time in the last two-and-a-half to three years discussing the prob-

lems of autistic children; here is a group of children with both handicaps.
Then there is the aspect of schooling. As an individual in society I have been horrified to notice that the children who are doing best are those in rural areas and villages, where the local community takes them on and they go into normal schools without difficulty. Many of the children, far less severely damaged, who are doing worst are those in our cities and urban areas, where we have lots of special schooling for them. This is a reflection on all of us.
I should like now to mention the families. My right hon. Friend said that some of the families had broken up, which is true, and that some of them have drawn together. It is relevant that we in this country have kept 90 per cent. of the children at home, whereas in Germany most of them have gone into institutions. But every one of the mothers of those 60 children is ill, taking tranquillisers for her nerves, and has done so virtually continuously since her thalidomide child was born. This is important to realise.
We are dealing here not just with parents of handicapped children but with parents who are themselves under great stress and difficulty. This is a very powerful added reason why the cases should be concluded in the courts as soon as possible. One could speculate why so many of the mothers are disturbed like this, but I will leave it there for now.
Many of the parents have given up work; many have had to change their houses and go into bungalows. The local authority provisions to help people to go into bungalows so that they can be on the ground floor are all available if one knows how to get at them, but many of the families have not known how to get the aid which is available.
Lastly I would remind the House what is involved in the court procedure. The children are professionally examined. The court, without actuarial provision, assesses their minimum likely needs. It has then—we have then—turned this into a financial sum, as we would perhaps for a child involved in a car accident. The children will then get 40 per cent. of the minimum of what the court, on the most stringent lines, has decided is absolutely essential for their future. If this is


natural justice, it is a very strange quirk of the law. Those who do not come into this particular 60 will then get, I understand, 60 per cent, of the 40 per cent., so that they go even further down the scale.
We should all recognise that there is a manifest social injustice here. In a recent case, a girl who was blinded at school—a very tragic thing—got a very large sum. Here, because of our legal procedures, somebody else who has been accidentally damaged is likely to get a pittance, a token of what he actually needs.
I am absolutely delighted at what my right hon. Friend has already said. I hope that at the end of the day we will have four lines from the Government which we could pursue. First, I hope that more funds will be available immediately for the social and educational services so that they can operate a little more flexibly and rapidly for these children. Second, we have discovered through this case that the ordinary court procedure is not rapid enough. I hope we can set up an inquiry to examine our legal procedure in handicap cases of this kind.
Third, I hope that when this court case is finished the Prime Minister's promise to consider setting up another fund will still stand. Fourth, because of what the families and the children themselves have said, I hope that my right hon. Friend will set up some procedure for increased research into the provision of equipment for handicapped children. We are in the Middle Ages in our provision in this respect.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: We lead the world in aids for disabled people and disabled children. What concerns me deeply is our slowness in applying them to the children. I appeal to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see to it that the Fleming Fulton School in Belfast, where there are thalidomide children, gets some POSSUM equipment quickly, because those children are making rapid progress.
We must try to compensate these children for their physical limitations by applying known technologies. It should not be the subject of charity but should

be something of right which comes from the State. I urge the right hon. Lady to look carefully at the problems of schools like Fleming Fulton, Chailey Heritage and Hephaistos.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will make £3 million available now for equipment. However, he will find that it is not enough. I should be grateful to help him spend it, because I have a fair file on people who are desperately in need.
As for the fund, I am not so happy. I know that people have said that these parents should not worry about solicitors telling them that they will lose legal aid, but let us forget the machinery involved; if one's solicitor says that legal aid will be withdrawn, one tends to believe him. The fund should be set up now, before the cases are over, so that help can be given now and the anxieties and the burden can be taken from these people now. If it is done after the cases are settled, the great problem will be that Distillers will have yet another excuse to lean on these people to get them to accept a low settlement.
I have a reasonable suggestion to make. In Germany, where there is the same problem, Chemie Griinenthal went fiddling on in the legal jungle for 10 years, until everybody had had enough. It strikes me that we today in this House have had enough of all the legal wrangle. It is about time we stopped it. In the end, Chemie Grünenthal said that it would realise all its tangible assets and give its profits for the next 10 years to the children.
In a first-class speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said he thought that £20 million would do it. It would not repair the damage, it would not take away the suffering, it would not relieve the anxieties and the weariness of the parents. But let Distillers, at this last late hour, say "We will do what Chemie Grünenthal did." The company would still survive, it would still have massive profits: it would not know a damned thing about it. Suppose we take my hon. Friend's figure of £20 million—although I would make it £50 million. Distillers' assets are £400 million, so the firm would not notice it there. By the same token, its profits over the past 10 years have


totalled £260 million. It could give a share of that.
I would say to Distillers, "Act now. You really have been in this rat race far too long. Get the hell out of it and give these people justice by making an allocation outside the courts, and then leave them to fend for themselves."

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: In briefly following the remarks of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), I would say that had the Distillers Company's offer been four times as much as it has been, I should have found it difficult to say that it was enough.
As I promised you, Mr. Speaker, I have only three or four minutes to say what I have to say. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to forgive me for not following their remarks, except in saying how much admiration I have for the speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan) from his deep knowledge of this subject.
My qualifications for saying what I shall now say are slender. They are based on two simple facts. The first is that I have been a Member of the House for nearly 18 years. The second is that during those 18 years' service to the House of Commons I have come to love this place. I do not believe that at any stage—I hope that the Press will repeat nothing I say—I have either let myself down or let the House down.
I simply want to appeal to the House on this enormously serious topic, on which there is basically no division between hon. Members in any part of the House. I make the appeal to Members of Parliament that they do not act tonight in a way which will so debase the currency of Parliament—let us face the fact that it is already debased enough—by turning these tragic children into a political shuttlecock by voting on the issue.
I pray to hon. Members, with prayers which are directed not to my side of the House alone but also to the Opposition benches, that they will feel that the right way to treat this matter is for the House of Commons to act in the only sensible way that it can, and that is to do every-

thing it conceivably can towards the help of these poor, tragic kids.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I shall be equally as brief as the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), who has set us a very good example.
First, I echo something said by the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan) and by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). We have to remember that we are dealing with a drug which as well as bringing dire tragedy to a few brought at the time great comfort to many. That is true of many drugs which are in common use. Indeed, I am told that every day or two in Europe someone dies through taking penicillin. We are, however, well aware of the benefits that penicillin has brought.
I start on a point of disagreement with the Secretary of State. We all agree that compensation must ultimately be a matter for the company, but it is my belief that because of the complex processes of the drug industry and the testing machinery we now have—we should remember that we have to look to the future as well as the past—and because of the contractual relationship between the National Health Service and patients today, it is no longer good enough in 1972 that we sit aside and say that this is a private matter between the person who takes the drug and the company which manufactures it. That is in no way to diminish their responsibility, but society and the National Health Service have a right and, therefore, the Government have a duty to intervene in a matter of this kind.
Secondly, we must all be appalled and concerned for the parents and the cost of the litigation involved in this case. I am increasingly concerned, as an ordinary Member of Parliament dealing with constituents, about the growing number of complaints from ordinary people, in all manner of cases, about the complexities, costs and difficulties in the processes of the law. It is high time that the House held an inquiry into the methods of operation of the legal profession. Very often justice delayed—this is such a case—can be justice denied. That is a second reason why it is right that


the Government, on behalf of the public, should intervene in this case and seek at least a temporary remedy.
Thirdly, I believe that one of the effects of this debate, and certainly of the whole issue being raised, is to highlight the totally inadequate facilities we provide in our Welfare State by the National Health Service for that small minority of our population who are either physically or mentally handicapped, a group in which we may include the thalidomide children. I am constantly concerned about the individual cases which are brought to me in a non-urban area. I agree with what the hon. Member for Reading said about schools in rural areas. I admire the work done by people who work with the handicapped. But as a society, under successive Governments, we have not been prepared to devote enough of our national resources to helping these people. I hope that this is one thing which will emerge. For that reason I welcome the start made by the Secretary of State in announcing the £3 million to help these people.
The real point of difference that has emerged from the debate is that some of us believe that the Government ought to set up a trust fund to establish machinery for settling, in whatever way the judgment may be exercised, the claims of individuals and that the Government should take over the legal battle to recoup the money from Distillers Company. After this period of time, that is the least we are entitled to ask. Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to move in that direction, I have no alternative but to advise my hon. Friends to vote in support of the motion.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: I should like first to say how much I have admired the work done by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I also mention the Sunday Times. The more that this matter is brought to the attention of the public, the better it will be for these unfortunate children. I welcome the debate although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), I hope that there will not be a vote.
I draw the attention of the House to an article in the magazine Community

Medicine on 24th November, with the headline
Squalid wrangle over thalidomide issue makes people despair of party politics.
The article goes on to say:
The thalidomide children have now become a party-political issue. That became certain last week.
This is very much to be deplored. Anyone present at this debate will realise that that is not so. If we do not have a vote, this will become apparent to everyone.
I was very pleased to be one of the six original sponsors of the hon. Gentleman's motion, which in some ways initiated discussion of the matter. I approached the debate with some misgivings because it seemed a difficult position for the Government and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say that however much sympathy we might have—indeed, we all have it—it would be difficult to do anything until the legal wrangles had ended, especially as those wrangles have been going on for 10 years.
The situation has changed slightly since yesterday or the day before. I give the same sort of modified welcome as that of other hon. Members to the increase in the Distillers Company's offer. I do not know enough about it to know whether it is enough. Probably it is not enough. Its timing must be regarded as slightly suspect, being 24 hours before a debate in this Chamber. That seems to be too much of a coincidence.
I warmly welcome the £3 million for all handicapped children announced by my right hon. Friend. This sum may well not be enough, but at least it is an earnest of good faith. My right hon. Friend was right to remind us that there are many other children with disabilities as grievous as those we are discussing. My right hon. Friend referred to the possibility of a trust fund. Should it become necessary, would that second £3 million in the trust fund be for thalidomide children only or for all handicapped children?
My next question is of great importance to me. I accept the Government's arguments that the trust fund legislation should not be initiated while the legal argument continues as £3 million has


already been allocated. But if the legal argument were to continue for another six months, another year, two years or even 10 years, would this mean that the Government, whatever Government might be in office in 10 years' time, would still be waiting for the legal arguments to end before the matter was reviewed?

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I am following the hon. Member's argument with great sympathy, and what I wish to say does not reflect upon the Minister because I know that his heart is in this matter. Is the hon. Member suggesting, however, that all people are equal before the law? Speaking as a lawyer I know only too well of the pressures that are brought upon people to settle these issues. Is it right that people should be confronted by a barrister who says that he does not know whether they will win the case but that he would settle for a certain sum? In so doing people might settle for a ridiculous amount. Is it not right at this stage that the Government should set up a trust to safeguard those people while the test case goes before the House of Lords, if necessary?

Mr. Shelton: I take the point entirely; that is a difficulty. While I understand the hon. Member's argument, however, there is a counter-argument that for legislation to be undertaken at this stage would in some way, perhaps, relieve the pressure on the company. It would relieve the liability on the company also. There are two points of view. It is a tragedy that this should happen but I believe that to undertake legislation now would reduce pressure on the company.
I want to know how long we must be prepared to wait before we say that we can wait no longer and that we must do something, perhaps set up a trust fund even though that might prejudice the case and even though it might take pressure off the company.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) moved the motion as a matter of urgency and in very strong terms. I am sure that the whole House is indebted to him and to the Sunday Times for their persistent efforts on

behalf of these unfortunate children. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) referred to a book which has been written by two Swedish scientists. I hope that if hon. Members have not read it they will do so. Those two men were engaged in research and dealt with many thalidomide cases and with the effect of many drugs, and they therefore had an intimate knowledge of the subject.
The book emphasises by reference to actual cases the terrible results that may ensue from the use of medicinal products and drugs, and it emphasises the vital necessity for a long period of observation and testing before they are put on the market. I know that this has been recognised to some extent in this country by the Medicines Act 1968. We have a Committee on the Safety of Drugs; a licensing committee has been set up on the safety and efficiency of drugs. But the Medicines Act does not appear to provide a civil remedy. It prescribes penalties for offences in regard to the regulations that it specifies. Under Section 64 the appropriate Minister may prohibit the sale and supply of medicinal products or make conditions for their sale. The operative word is "may", not "shall".
The motion calls for immediate legislation to deal with the problem of children, and I suggest that it is essential that that Act should be re-examined with a view to making it more effective, particularly the provisions dealing with advertising. The only effective remedy for injury resulting from the use of a medicinal product or drug appears to be by proving negligence. As was shown in the thalidomide cases that were settled, it is very often difficult to prove such negligence. The onus is upon the plaintiff, and the burden of proof is often a very difficult one to discharge. A criticism has been made by a number of people about the lawyers, and I suppose that, as a lawyer, it is a little dangerous for me to intervene in the debate. But the lawyers who are acting in this case can only advise and act on existing law, and I am sure that they have advised and are doing what they think is in the best interest of their clients. The moral obligation is upon the company; the lawyers can only give it legal advice. I know a case can be made out about the delays in the law, but that case has been


made again and again, and I hope and understand that something may have been done about it.
The real need is for the law to be overhauled where it applies to the testing and marketing of drugs before they can be prescribed for human use. It should never be possible, as was done in the case of thalidomide, to have a drug of that kind put upon the market without the necessity of prescription.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I believe that the hon. and learned Member is mistaken. Distaval always needed a prescription, and prescriptions may have been given too casually, but nevertheless a doctor's prescription was needed to obtain it.

Mr. Weitzman: I understand that originally thalidomide could have been purchased without a prescription. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not in this country."] That should never be done with a drug of this kind. I see someone on the Opposition Front Bench nodding his head. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South raised this aspect in the Adjournment debate and made that clear. There is a vital need to see that when a medicinal product or drug is put upon the market for human use there is an express warranty that it is reasonably safe for the purposes for which it is intended to be used and that a person, including an unborn child, who suffers because of a breach of that warranty has a remedy in law. Moreover, when an action is brought the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 have to be met. As is shown by the conflicting views of judges in the recent case of Central Asbestos Company Limited v. Dodd—(1972) 2A.E.R1135—the victims in cases dealing particularly with effects of diseases resulting from conditions of employment may be denied their remedy. The provisions should be looked at again.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has used his luck in the ballot to present, appropriately today, a Bill entitled the Dangerous Drugs and Disabled Children Bill, dealing as far as a Private Member's Bill can with this very problem. I hope that as a non-party measure it will receive the support of all hon. Members. I know that my hon. Friend would dearly have liked to include a provision

that a fund should be created by the Government to help these unfortunate children, but he cannot do that in a Private Member's Bill. That can be done only by the Government. I am glad that the Amendment says that the Government will consider the establishment of a trust. But for the life of me I cannot understand why that trust cannot be created now. How would it prejudice the rights of litigants in the cases before the courts? They could proceed with their cases. Surely the Government should say today "We recognise the difficulties of these unfortunate children. We are prepared to establish a trust now so that they will not suffer in any way."
I again beg the Secretary of State to see that that argument is considered a little more closely. Let him not stick to the idea that if a fund is established it will in some way prejudice the cases now in progress. If it is established in a certain way, there is no reason why it should. Of course, it might well be said that any damages obtained by the children can go to the fund eventually. But the fund should be there as a guarantee for their future.
I hope that the strong feeling expressed today will result in speeded action to ameliorate, even if we cannot entirely resolve, these problems.

6.12 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on moving the motion, and I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan). I had not heard such a brilliant medical exposition of the case before my hon. Friend's speech, and I do not think that we shall be privileged to hear such an exposition again. I shall not speak for very long, partly because I could not possibly better that.
But I want to emphasise one or two points. The first is about the heterogeneous nature of the parents. They are not a tight group. When their children were born they did not know that they had anything in common with other parents in the country. They were not in a position to take immediate action, but now the Distillers Company says "It is not we who caused the delay, but the


parents who caused much of it." That is not true. There was delay initially because the medical profession did not realise why the children were affected as they are, and it took time for the parents to come together.
When we look at the time the law has taken we see that it is not entirely blameless. When a trade union is fighting a case there is on one side a very powerful body and on the other usually a fairly powerful boss. A good example is to be seen in the case in which ICI rubber workers were found to develop a cancer of the bladder. In three years their trade union had the problem completely settled, because on the one side there was a united group of workers and on the other a well-established boss.
The problem of thalidomide is completely different. The patients are scattered all over the country, and cannot get together. They should not be blamed for failing to make any form of group approach. They have done remarkably well with few funds to achieve a considerable degree of unanimity. If there has been a lack of pressure up till now it was partly because they are not a group and partly because they have been fighting various test cases. It was very difficult even to get the disclosures right initially. They have not had the assistance they might have had from the Distillers company.
On the question of compensation, we must realise that the hurdles for the children are still to come. There is the hurdle of puberty, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading spoke. There is the hurdle of adult life. But, above all, there is the hurdle of isolation when the parents die. We have no concept of what the costs will be for the children if they have to live from the age of 40 to, say, 60 or 70 with no support from parents. They will certainly find the sums given to them by Distillers are totally inadequate.
It would seem reasonable, perhaps, to persuade Distillers to make a proportion of the equity of the company over to a trust fund so that the children are protected to some extent against inflation. If it made over, say, £20 million to the trust fund that would dilute its capital only slightly, and there would be protec-

tion against inflation for the children for the whole of their life span.
Thirdly, we must realise the climate in which the drug was prescribed. There has been a great revolution since the war. Before the war the pharmaceutical industry had little to offer patients, and doctors hummed and hawed uselessly by the bedside. But from 1935 onwards we were able to help patients. It was an era of euphoria in prescription. We handed out drugs far too readily and easily, and did not always understand the consequences.
Many people in society benefited from these advances. The 400-odd children whom we are debating are the casualties, the price we have had to pay for the benefit that many families have enjoyed. In any adult audience, one in five of those present owes his or her life to a modern drug. The price we pay is the 400-odd children who are hopelessly and appallingly maimed. Society as a whole owes them a debt.
It was not only doctors who were euphoric. A great deal of industry was euphoric and money was made very fast. Therefore, apart from the well-established large ethical companies, many other tried to jump on the bandwagon to diversify their interests. Thus we had a German company with an unpronounceable name, which was really a subsidiary of a lipstick manufacturing firm, manufacturing Distaval in Germany, and by all accounts doing so extraordinarily badly. Then we had in this country Distillers, which is really a distillery company, diversifying into drugs. Regrettably, it manufactured thalidomide extremely efficiently, so it was that much more dangerous than the German variety, which was so badly made that it did not always have the lethal effect that it might have had.
Society has benefited from the pharmaceutical industry, and still does. At the top end of the spectrum the industry was even then testing very thoroughly, but at the bottom end the testing was pretty dicey. The companies involved were often subsidiaries of other companies. They are the people we should be condemning today, as well as admitting that we in society owe a debt to the children, a debt we must repay by saying that we must certainly sooner or later set up a trust fund for them.

6.19 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): I am constrained to enter this debate because I believe that the medical profession has a responsibility in the matter.
I do not think that this is an occasion for a balanced argument. There is an outcry in the country, and if the House is not a place where we can shout about it when something appears to be hidden behind a smokescreen of legal procedure, God help the ordinary people when it comes to claiming their redress of grievance.
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on the most eloquent plea he made. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on her powerful speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). I add my high regard of the speech made by the hon. and qualified Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan). It reminded me of the best traditions of the clinical lecture theatre; only the patients were absent. But I could conjure up very readily the horrifying scenes which were vividly depicted in the hon. Member's speech.
I have said that the medical profession must bear some responsibility, and we do. We are the cause of a new disease, the iatrogenic illness caused by our own medicines. We have prescribed these medicines. We have given them to our patients, and our patients have every right to feel confident in what we say, in what we do and in what we give them. When a situation like this evolves we must bear a degree of responsibility.
Perhaps there is a tendency on the part of some members of my profession not to be humble enough about the damage that they can do in addition to the good which they can often do. I remember the blandishments which were made upon me by the pharmaceutical industry when I was in practice as a family doctor. I was pushed by Distillers Ltd. in respect of Distaval. But I am one of those rather peculiar doctors who feel a little old-fashioned about succumbing to all the claims which are made for the more fashionable cures. I am not detracting from the claim made by the hon. and qualified Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), that we must try new methods

and new remedies because it is only in that way that we can make advances.
However, I believe that it is also incumbent upon the medical profession to treat with extreme care the claims which are made for drugs, especially when there are flags flying of danger. There is a plethora of drugs on the market which are totally unnecessary. The hypnotics which were pushed at the time of Distaval fell into that category. They were pushed merely to increase the profits of some of the drug companies.
If I may digress for a short time, this highlights the problem of the testing and the evaluation of drugs. We are perhaps shortly to debate vivisection and the care of animals. I advise my hon. Friends to be extremely careful about what they say in that respect.
But the main responsibility lies with Distillers. There is clearly a cause and effect situation. Nobody disputes that. I do not believe that any of my hon. Friends are criticising the Government for lack of provisions in the National Health Service. I think the Secretary of State must be complimented in doing everything possible within the scope of the health service. But the Government are being criticised for not relieving the kind of pressure which is obviously being made upon many of the parents who are attempting to redress their grievance. I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) said, that the Government could set up a trust fund without prejudice to the cases now proceeding.
Everyone has sympathy for all sufferers of severe congenital abnormalities. However, we are not dealing now with that situation as a whole; we are dealing directly and specifically with a cause and effect situation. We are pinpointing an aspect of congenital abnormality which has been the direct cause, and it is something for which we bear some responsibility.
The current issue of Community Medicine has been referred to, a copy of which I also happen to have. In the current issue the political writer says:
there has come the increasing realisation among MPs that the politicians have a direct responsibility too. This drug, after all, was prescribed on the National Health Service. It was tax exempted. These are matters of direct Parliamentary responsibility. But there


is a further political responsibility which has so far been the concern only of a minority. When Distaval came on the market there was no proper monitoring system for drugs.
The article continues:
It is one of many examples of dangers and responsibilities whose significance continued to be overlooked until unmistakably signalled by a disaster. For that the politicians and the deficiencies of the system over which they preside, must take the blame.
I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to try to bring some kind of pressure upon Distillers. The best type of pressure which could be brought would be the setting up of a trust fund for the victims. If some further action is taken as a result of this debate, my right hon. and hon. Friends deserve praise for having initiated it.

6.27 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The Economist of 25th August, 1962, when speaking about thalidomide, said:
This is a situation that requires a cool head to warm hearts.
If the intervening 10 years has heated up some of the heads it has cooled none of the hearts. There is absolutely no doubt from everything that has been said that there is unanimity across the Floor of the House in concern for these children. That cannot in any way be questioned. But what worries me is that we are being asked in the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to allocate funds to people who will be getting some provision on top of that.
Much as I admire the splendid and tremendously informative speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan), I find it immensely difficult to be divisive in the help which I wish to make available for all handicapped people. That is the difficult point, not whether we shall upset the courts. I could not care less about upsetting the courts. What worries me is that there is not a bottomless pit of cash. There is, however, an unlimited number of people who need our help. That is the problem which the House faces.
Can my right hon. Friend possibly announce, in view of all the things that have been said, the setting up of any research into foetal life or teratogenic effects. If nothing else can be done

tonight, something of that kind would be of immense help.
I was appalled when I found the number of names which thalidomide goes under. Distaval has been mentioned. It is Softenon in Finland; Kevadon and Talimol in Canada; Noctosediv in Spain; and Neurosedyn in Sweden. There are 37 different names for various drugs containing thalidomide. Will the Medicines Act cover the whole world? It seems that this is a many-headed hydra with many names. How can we be sure that there is some central sifting of medicine information whereby something which has popped up and been condemned in one country cannot pop up in this country and not be recognised?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: There is, basically, only a difference of emphasis between us on this issue, but it is an important difference which was reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). She says that she cannot be divisive about the treatment of the handicapped and disabled, and there is obviously a great element of truth in that. But she misses the point of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), which was that there is here an essential moral obligation which falls upon the nation—not upon political parties but upon the nation.
On the legal case, I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who said that he cannot see—as I cannot see—how the Government would prejudice the negotiations by setting up a new disaster fund or subscribing more heavily to the Lady Hoare Fund. I can see no specific difference of principle between that position and the one that arises as a matter of everyday occurrence in legal practice, where, for example, an employer who values the services of an employee who has had the misfortune to suffer an accident—perhaps a road accident—decides to pay that man his ordinary salary, perhaps on the basis that it will be repaid as a result of the litigation. I can see no distinction in principle between that situation, which does not impair or prejudice negotiations, and


the present one. It can be made subject to terms.
The Government have to meet that point. Why cannot they establish a fund on such a basis? Why should it impede the negotiations? Why has it been possible to do this elsewhere without having a disastrous effect on litigation? The Distillers company says that there is no legal liability, and this is not the place to argue that point, but it seems to accept a moral responsibility. I cannot believe that if it is honourable in conducting these negotiations it would seek to shuffle off its responsibilities if the Government were to establish a trust fund now. Another factor which I find rather extraordinary is that in this totally extraordinary case the Distillers company has not taken it upon itself to help the people in the interim before a final settlement is arrived at.
This case demonstrates the absurdity of the equipment available to lawyers and the law generally to deal with such totally exceptional circumstances. This case cannot be dealt with along the customary lines, neither for the assessment of damages nor so far as the necessity to establish negligence in order to succeed in circumstances such as this is concerned—the point of burden of proof which my hon. and learned Friend made.
On the question of damages, the Law Commissioners themselves have pointed out that the legal method of fixing damages in English law lacks any mathematical, actuarial, statistical or other scientific basis, and they recommend that in future such factors should play their full part. But, as The Times pointed out in a recent article, there is no sign of that suggestion being translated into law.
Obviously, an enormous difficulty confronts legal advisers at present. We have a rule of thumb element which can be disastrous when dealing with a situation of this kind. There can be no doubt that many cases must have been settled at far below really acceptable figures, and this is because insufficient funds are available to some of the people. There may be an inadequacy in the legal aid system. There has been perhaps in some situations—I am not making any reflection on the legal advisers in this case—inadequate advice. There is also uppermost

in the minds of people the threat that costs might be incurred which they could not afford to bear even if legally aided, since in some cases they might have to make a substantial contribution. They must also bear in mind that they are facing an organisation with vast funds which can take the case to the uttermost limits, which the ordinary individual cannot face the prospect of doing.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that ordinary people very often are advised to take what is offered rather than allow their case to proceed through the courts and possibly lose everything thereby?

Mr. Davis: Of course I am aware of that. Most people, lawyers and non-lawyers, in the House are aware of it.
This terrible and tragic case illustrates how inadequate our present system of the law of negligence is in dealing with such appalling situations.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This has been perhaps one of the most compelling debates any of us have listened to in the House for a very long time, beginning with the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and carried on by many other hon. Members on both sides. It can only be destroyed as a compelling House of Commons operation if the Opposition persist in a vote against the Government tonight. I hope that they will not do it.
The Opposition motion is not basically critical of the Government and the Government amendment does not propose that the Government should escape responsibility. This House has, of course, no responsibility—although it may be critical of it—for the Distillers company as such. We can criticise—and certainly I do—the delay which has taken place. We may deplore the inadequacy of the offer. The fact remains that there is no actual responsibility in this House for the Distillers company, but there is a responsibility, of course, for these children, and we accept, and must accept, that responsibility.
Hon. Members opposite must recognise that this case has gone on for 10 years, during part of which time there was a Labour Government. It has been said


that none of us has raised this matter in the House. The Labour Government did nothing about it.
I appreciate very much the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My heart said to me a few weeks ago that I must sign the Motion which was put down by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, but I did not do so. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman why. It was because I happen to have a sister who is matron of a unit for the handicapped and disabled—a hospital-come-workplace. We are pleading today for a particular group, and we are right to do so. But we must not forget that the House of Commons and the Government stemming from it have a responsibility for the disabled in the widest sense. We cannot legislate on the basis of a particular group. My right hon. Friend has provided extra money. It is not only for the thalidomide children but for others as well. He has to look at the whole situation of the disabled, as we have. This Government have done a great deal. The services provided are considerable. They are still not enough. If the debate draws attention to the fact that all Governments have failed to provide sufficiently for the disabled in every category in our community it will have done a valuable service.
Whatever happens to these particular children, they will be financially a great deal better off than many who are disabled for other reasons. Money does not solve the problem, but money they must have, because it enables them at any rate to have the kinds of services that they require. Although they will get it in due course—and we hope that it will be soon and that the delay will be ended by some means or another—and although they will get additional finance, let us not forget that the House has a duty to all those who are disabled. If the debate draws attention to that, it also will have justified our not dividing the House.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The House is always at its best when debating such deeply sensitive issues as the fate of severely disabled children. Unfailingly, the House shows its humanity on these occasions. There has, of course, been great pressure on time. Many hon. and right hon. Gentle-

men have spoken, and I know that many more wanted to speak.
It is generally agreed that we had a superb and memorable opening from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and there have been many other distinguished speeches from both sides of the House. If I may make one other prefatory remark, it is that we should talk less of the thalidomide problem and more of the thalidomide children and their families. A drug prescribed for morning sickness for pregnant women has created the prospect of lifelong heart sickness for the thalidomide families. All of us must agree that, by definition of the word "family", if one member of the family is disabled the family as a whole is disabled.
Many of us have heard in recent days from the families of thalidomide children. One of the most grievously disabled of all the thalidomide children was born in my constituency. I refer to young David Jones, who was born without arms and without legs. I have had a letter from his mother in recent days. It is a powerful, but deeply distressing, document. It is not my intention to read the letter to the House, but the Secretary of State said he would welcome information about the suffering of thalidomide families. I shall, therefore, pass the letter from David's mother to him, as I shall also pass a letter which has been handed to me by my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Morley (Sir A. Broughton), and for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) from the father of a thalidomide child. This further distressing letter is from Mr. Ryan of 21, Harriwell Avenue, Sherwell, Morley, Yorkshire.
I should like directly to quote the comments of two thalidomide children. The first is the daughter of Gordon Piller, of the Institute of Child Health. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are familiar with his outstanding work among severely disabled children. He told me that what is so sad for his family is his daughter's question: "Mummy, will my stumps grow?"
I should also like to quote words used by another thalidomide child, Patrick Pope of Dibden, Purlieu, Hampshire, who has had 42 operations in the last 10 years. He says to his mother: "Mummy, please do not let me have any more


operations". I am sure that we all appreciate the tremendous bravery of the thalidomide children and the great fortitude of their parents. We have been asked in the debate why we refer particularly to the problems of thalidomide children alone. My reply is that through their bravery and suffering the thalidomide children are a symbol of the very much larger number of severely disabled children. Even in the last 12 months there has been a deterioration in the condition of many of the thalidomide families. Let me quote what was said by Miss Jacqueline Wetter, a welfare consultant with Lady Mary Hoare's Thalidomide Trust. She says that there has been "a perceptible lowering of morale over the past year."
Writing in the Sunday Times on 1st October, 1972, Brigadier George Chatter-ton, the Administrator of the Lady Hoare Trust, said:
We became convinced that the policy was to sweep these children under the carpet and for the whole episode to be forgotten as quickly as possible.
The Secretary of State said that he had not heard much from the Lady Hoare Trust in the past two years. I must, therefore, quote what was said by Lady Hoare herself to the Daily Mail on 21st December, 1971:
These families are cracking under the strain. Distillers have kept these people waiting for ten years while they quibble over how much compensation they are prepared to pay.
In the motion we make two main propositions. We say that Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited must face up to its moral responsibilities. Secondly, we urge that society as a whole—not just the Government of the day, but society as a whole—must face up to its responsibilities.
The motion was drafted entirely without party animus. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) strongly argued that the Motion was not critical of the present Government. He referred to his sister. I know her well through correspondence she has had with me. If I may say so, I deeply admire the work she does among severely disabled children. Her brother is eminently right to say, certainly I would say, that she is a distinguished person in this respect.
I say again that it has been none of our intention to inject party animus into the debate. We have tried very hard to keep to the spirit of the Early-Day Motion. We felt that it ought to be possible for both sides of the House to tell Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited that it must face its moral responsibilities. Further, we hoped that both sides of the House would recognise that society as a whole has responsibilities to these children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South fully delineated the moral responsibilities of the company. If Distillers was prepared to make a profit out of thalidomide, it ought to be prepared to make a loss. Every hon. and right hon. Member must recognise that. There can be no question of the company's ability to discharge its financial responsibilities to the thalidomide children. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) referred to the capital assets of the company. He referred also to Chemie GrÜnenthal, the German makers of thalidomide. The German company agreed to give to the thalidomide families in West Germany the whole of its profits for the next 10 years. Here, we must note that the German company is much smaller than Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited.
The West German company's profits over the next 10 years are expected to amount to about £12 million sterling. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that Distillers had net profits over the last 10 years of £261 million. It is not for a company of that size to say that it cannot meet its responsibilities to grievously disabled children in this country.
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in saying that the House as a whole must now lend its weight in the uneven struggle between the authors and the victims of this tragedy. The Secretary of State and other hon. Members have referred to the new offer from Distillers that was announced, or leaked, yesterday. Making allowance for inflation, the new offer appears to be worth, in real terms, only about 66 per cent. of the 1968 offer. The earlier offer was itself grossly inadequate to meet the needs of such severely disabled children. The Sunday Times and many other newspapers have played


an important part in keeping the problems of the thalidomide families before the people of this country. I would like to refer not only to Harold Evans, the Editor of the Sunday Times, a friend of my schooldays, but also to Harry Longmuir, of the Daily Mail, who has constantly argued the case of those who have suffered from the making and distribution of thalidomide.
There is also a responsibility upon central Government, because thalidomide was distributed under the National Health Service. Further than that, there was a purchase tax concession given to the drug. It was pointed out in the House on 16th November 1972 by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that exemption from purchase tax is highly prized by the drug manufacturers. If Whitehall was prepared to allow thalidomide to be distributed under the National Health Service, if it was also prepared to exempt thalidomide from purchase tax, then it has a direct involvement in this tragedy in the eyes of most people.
It is much to the credit of the United States that thalidomide is not the problem there that it is here. The late President Kennedy decorated Dr. Francis Kelsey, of the United States Food and Drugs Administration, for preventing the distribution of thalidomide in the United States. Yet Dr. Kelsey says that he merely read a letter in the British Medical Journey in August 1960. There can be no question but that central Government is involved.
I entirely agree with the Secretary of State that we must be concerned not just with one group of disabled children but with all severely disabled children. The Under-Secretary speaking in the Adjournment debate of 16th November said:
Alas, there are many other disabled children in our country with similar needs—children disabled in road accidents, fires in the home, and batterings from their parents, and children who have suffered deformities of all sorts and kinds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 771.]
We entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is, however, a scandal that neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone on this side of the House can say exactly how many severely disabled children there are in contemporary Britain. The Government's survey of the disabled

excluded everyone under the age of 16. It is wholly deplorable that none of us can say today just how many severely disabled children there are in our society.
The Government say that they want to do everything possible to help such children. Let me quote from an advertisement in last weekend's Press. It deals with severely disabled people aged between 16 and 64 and is about the extension of the attendance allowance. It says:
Starting 4th June, 1973 an allowance of £3.60 a week will be paid for people born in any of the years from 1908 to 1956.
In the Government's view, the priorities of severely disabled children are not, therefore, as high as the priority of other groups of severely disabled people. I would have hoped that the Secretary of State would now be willing to agree to advance the operative date for the extension of the attendance allowance for severely disabled children.
As the Law Commissioners have said, the legal method of fixing damages lacks any mathematical, actuarial, statistical or other scientific basis. May I ask, therefore, what is stopping the Government now from immediately bringing in a measure to make evidence of this kind crucial? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come to that point in his reply.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), in a wholly admirable article in the Sunday Times last weekend, made a compelling case for law reform in this field. I hope the Government will pay due attention to what my hon. Friends said in their article. I was advised, on very good legal authority, that if the argument should be adduced—it has been adduced by the Secretary of State—that the setting up of a Government fund would let Distillers off the hook, then it can be refuted as follows.
Defendants are liable only for the damage that has been suffered, and, in view of this, it is possible that payments out of a Government fund would have to be taken into account. But an alternative arrangement could be made, one that is universally accepted, tested and upheld


in the courts. The fund could be set up to make the payment of a loan repayable only in the event of damages being awarded. I would like the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who has taken a personal interest in the legal aspects of this problem, to consider that suggestion.
I should like also to know from the Secretary of State how the £3 million fund is to operate. Will there be regular payments to corporate or individual recipients, or a lump sum payment? How much is it estimated will go to the thalidomide children? As to the additional fund, to be made available by the Government after the settlement, what is the amount, the basis of calculation and the method of distribution of the fund? These are somewhat technical points, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will attempt to answer them, although he explained to me that he wished to speak only briefly in reply.
It is not we on this side of the House who are seeking to arouse public opinion in favour of the thalidomide families. Large sections of the Press have said that justice must now be done. For justice to be done we require action by Distillers and by the Government.
I say yet again that I hope that it will be recognised that we never had any intention of injecting party animus into this debate. We hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will recognise that there is very little in our motion which they can legitimately criticise. I trust that they will accept the motion and agree to the withdrawal of the amendment.

7.2 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
I must pay tribute to the self-control of hon. Members. We have had nearly 20 speeches in a half-day debate, and I seldom remember a range of speeches, from both sides of the House, so deeply informed with passion. However, I hope that others will forgive me if I pick out the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan) as being outstandingly perceptive and constructive.

Other Members, such as the hon. Members for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), all made very constructive speeches.
I should like to refer, possibly slightly invidiously, to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) as being something which we should all bear in mind. He said—and it is perfectly true—that the poignant tragedy of thalidomide is the contrast between the damage done by that drug and the great blessing which new drugs, on the whole, have been to the people of this country and, indeed, to the population of the world. We must set this disaster against the massive benefits which innovation in drug firms and in the laboratories of universities and research institutes has achieved. As the House knows, locking the stable door after the horse had well and truly bolted, we now have a scrutinising system which, as I am advised—I am no expert—is as good as that which any country can possibly hope to have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) asked whether the scrutinising system protected the people of this country against imported drugs. It seeks to do so. Imported drugs are within the remit of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. My hon. Friend also asked whether sufficient research into the various problems connected with thalidomide is being carried out. That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has been on the Front Bench throughout the debate. She has told me that she will be discussing that question with the Medical Research Council and will write to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) rightly drew attention to the arguments which had been put publicly recently for reconsideration of the law of damages. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already told the House that the Government are studying the Robens Committee's recommendations. Therefore, the


hon. Gentleman can be assured that this question is under consideration.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) asked whether the Government would bring forward the date for the payment of the extended attendance allowance to children from December next year. He compared the year-long wait for children to qualify for the lower rate attendance allowance with the start of the lower-rate attendance allowance in June for those in the working age group. Which group to bring first into payment of the extended allowance was an invidious decision to make. The Government took the advice of the Attendance Allowance Board, which they thought was extremely sensible, and decided that the order for bringing the extended lower rate attendance allowance into payment should be, first, the working age group, then the children and then, in two stages, the elderly.
One can defend or attack any priority decision in this field, but I think that the House will be comforted by the knowledge that within two years all the groups to be covered by the extended attendance allowance will be in payment. When in full payment, the attendance allowance will cost £70 million a year. The allowance did not exist when the present Government came into office.
I repeat that on the major issue before the House the Government still believe, despite all the arguments adduced in this vivid debate, that the responsibility for compensation is on the manufacturers. However, the Government fully recognise the three worries which have dominated the speeches today. First, hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that if the Government lift a finger or say a word to accept any commitment on compensation, then, as many of us believe, from that moment the pressure to reach a satisfactory settlement will be relaxed. Some right hon. and hon. Members may disagree, but that is a view which I believe commands widespread support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) put the second worry most clearly. He said—a number of hon. Members echoed it—that we should do all we can for the thalidomide cases but we should not for-

get the other equally disabled children. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred to the pathetic case of a child suffering from thalidomide damage who has had 42 operations. I expect that if I were to consult my medical advisers I would find spina bifida cases in which just as many operations were carried out.
Can it be right for the House to concentrate on only one source of severe disability? I am not accusing the Opposition of so doing, but in the Motion the focus is entirely and understandably but not, I believe, completely wisely—

Mr. Alfred Morris: The distinction which we draw is that, as far as we know, spina bifida is not man-made.

Sir K. Joseph: But, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, children suffering from it have no recourse against a manufacturer, as the thalidomide children have. Therefore, how can we forget them? The Government acknowledge that the services for the disabled, which we have improved and propose to go on improving, are not yet nearly good enough. We are not smug about that.
We all accept the third worry which has come out loud and clear from the debate. In our anxiety not to prejudice a satisfactory settlement, let us bear in mind the strain on the parents. That is a formidable consideration which we must remember.
The right hon. Lady questioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or, rather, conducted a running discussion with him. I am not a practising lawyer. I should like to go into what was said and see with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether we can set out the facts as we see them any more clearly after consultations again with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. One of us will write to be right hon. Lady.
The House has generally welcomed the Government's decision to make available virtually at once, as soon as we can make the necessary arrangements, a fund of £3 million. I emphasise again that this is not compensation. Its purpose is to ease the burden of living on those households containing very severely congenitally disabled children.
These children and these households look, above all, to the local authorities and the statutory services for the help


they need. We intend the help from this fund to complement the statutory services available.
We have it in mind—this answers a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton)—to try to find a set of trustees of an existing trust with responsibilities sufficiently wide to cover beyond thalidomide the other very severely congenitally disabled cases. We hope that we shall be able to put this into action very soon. We believe that the trustees should have power to spend income and, where they judge fit, capital.
I do not wish to overstate this case, but I suggest that those households which are under particular strain and about which we are, above all, worried during the period of waiting for a satisfactory settlement will be able to be helped to some extent by the trustees of this new sum.
Hon. Members asked me about the second £3 million to which I referred. I emphasise again that this also is not for compensation. It is intended to benefit, via the same channel, if our experience of handling the first £3 million is satisfactory, the same limited but rather wider than thalidomide group, by the same means; namely, the use of income plus capital as the trustees judge fit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham pressed me hard to give a time

by which this second tranche of money would be paid. I only wish that I could satisfy my hon. Friend, but I must stand on the words of the amendment. This second tranche will be paid when the cases are no longer sub judice.

I have sought to cover quickly the main issues in the debate. I still greatly hope, as I believe that a number of hon. Members on both sides hope, that there will not be a vote tonight, because the origin of the motion is to some extent the all-party motion.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the amendment is carried, the Government tie their hands behind their backs and deliver themselves into the custody of the firm, because the firm can continue negotiations ad infinitum and, therefore, the fund may never he established?

Sir K. Joseph: No. The hon. Gentleman forgets that the House will be watching very carefully what goes on. I believe that if we act with emotion tonight we shall do damage to the very cause we all wish to serve. I hope that the Opposition will not press their motion to vote. If they do, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the motion and for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 260.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bray, Ronald
Costain, A. P.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Critchley, Julian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Crowder, F. P.


Astor, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkins, Humphrey
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Awdry, Daniel
Bryan, Sir Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Dean, Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buck, Antony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Balniel, Rt Hn. Lord
Bullus, Sir Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Dixon, Piers


Batsford, Brian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson. G B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Benyon, W.
Gary, Sir Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Channon, Paul
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Biffen, John
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Biggs-Davison John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Blaker, Peter
Churchill, W. S.
Emery, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clark William (Surrey, E.)
Eyre, Reginald


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Fell, Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooke, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bowden, Andrew
Coombs, Derek
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles




Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Fortescue, Tim
Lamont, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Foster, Sir John
Lane, David
Redmond, Robert


Fowler, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Fox, Marcus
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'field)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Gardner, Edward
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Gibson-Watt, David
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gllmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gorst, John
McMaster, Stanley
St. John Stevas, Norman


Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Simeons, Charles


Grieve, Percy
Madel, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Grylls, Michael
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Soref, Harold


Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith



Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stokes, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman
Sutcliffe, John


Havers, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Tapsell, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heseltine, Michael
Money, Ernie
Tebbit, Norman


Hicks, Robert
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Temple, John M.


Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
More, Jasper
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Trew, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard



Neave, Airey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Waddington, David


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Normanton, Tom
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Wall, Patrick


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Ward, Dame Irene


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Warren, Kenneth


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Parkinson, Cecil
Wiggin, Jerry


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Wilkinson, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Winterton, Nicholas


Kelley, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kilfedder, James
Pounder, Rafton
Woodnutt, Mark


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Kinsey, J. R.
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Kirk, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kitson, Timothy
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnes, Michael
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Albu, Austen
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Booth, Albert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Baxter, William
Bradley, Tom


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Beaney, Alan
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)


Ashley, Jack
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)







Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Paget, R. T.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts,Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Nell
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Stallard, A. W


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steel, David


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ewing, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackle, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marquand, David
Tuck, Raphael


Freeson, Reginald
Marsden, F.
Urwin, T. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Varley, Eric G.


Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milne, Edward
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian



Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 257.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[7.27 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Luce, R. N.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McMaster, Stanley


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gardner, Edward
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maginnis, John E.


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Biffen, John
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)



Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Brinton, Sir Tatton

Molyneaux, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Money, Ernle


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monro, Hector


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper


Buck, Antony
Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Burden, F. A.
Hayhoe, Parney
Morrison, Charles


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mudd, David


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Cary. Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Channon, Paul
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Normanton, Tom


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Coombs, Derek
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, John


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Critchley, Julian
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Rafton


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy


Dixon, Piers
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Drayson, G. B
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lament, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Farr, John
La Merchant, Spencer
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Rost, Peter


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Royle, Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald




St. John Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wall, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, cathcart)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Simeons, Charles
Temple, John M
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sinclair, Sir George
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Soref, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Speed, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon.S.)
Wilkinson, John


Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Sproat, Iain
Trew, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stanbrook, Ivor
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Woodnutt, Mark


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Worsley, Marcus


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stokes, John
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sutcliffe, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Bernard Weatherill




NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Albu, Austen
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dully, A. E. P.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashley, Jack
Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Russell


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kinnock, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, Tom
Lambie, David


Barnes, Michael
English, Michael
Lamond, James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Fred
Latham, Arthur


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ewing, Harry
Lawson, George


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Flsher,Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Leonard, Dick


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Tea (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)



Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus


Bishop, E S.
Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McBride, Neil


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gourlay, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McGuire, Michael


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Butler. Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carmichael, Neil
Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marsden, F.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hattersley, Roy
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Cohen, Stanley

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Corbet. Mrs. Freda
Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charle3 R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Janner, Greville
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Murray, Ronald King


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ogden, Eric


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dempsey, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Padley, Walter







Paget, R. T.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Varley, Eric G.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sillars, James
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Small, William
Wallace, George


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Watkins, David


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie



Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stallard, A. W
Wellbeloved, James


Price, William (Rugby)
Steel, David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Probert, Arthur
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitlock, William


Richard, Ivor
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,w.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Roper, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rose, Paul B.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wool, Robert


Sandelson, Neville
Tinn, James



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, disturbed about the plight of thalidomide children, and the delay in reaching a settlement between Distillers (Biochemicals) Limited and most of the children and their families, recognises the initiatives

taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve services for the handicapped and disabled; and welcomes the undertakings of Her Majesty's Government to investigate any case where the needs of a thalidomide child are thought not to be met by the services available, and to consider, as soon as the cases are no longer sub judice, whether a trust fund needs to be established for thalidomide children.

Orders of the Day — LORRIES (SIZE)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I have to tell the House that there are many more hon. Members seeking to speak in the debate than it will be possible to call. At the outset, therefore, I make an appeal for short speeches so that as many as possible may take part.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I beg to move,
That this House, mindful of the environment, is against bigger and heavier lorries.
I shall, of course, try to accede to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the Motion is as clear as the English language can make it. It is not an anti-European Motion. It is a Motion against a particular EEC regulation, and it is a Motion against bigger and heavier lorries in general, from whatever source the pressure for them comes. It is a Motion which, like Early Day Motion No. 55 on "Heavy Lorries", in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), is supported by people with extremely varying opinions on the Common Market, and it is a Motion the sentiments of which are supported also by many bodies in no way connected with the Common Market argument—for example by the four local authority associations, and by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its First Report of last Session, dated 15th June 1972, in which it recommended:
Whatever limits of weight for road vehicles are under consideration in the EEC, existing restrictions which are at present applied to British vehicles should be retained and applied fully to all lorries under the terms of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles') Act 1972.
Support for the Motion obviously goes very wide indeed.
My second preliminary point is that I am not moving the Motion as some crazy Doomwatch character wholly indifferent to all questions of economic growth and efficiency. The Minister for Transport Industries is fond of saying that the heavy commercial vehicle plays a large part in the economy of the country and therefore in the lives of ordinary people. I fully accept that and, indeed, have constantly fallen into trouble with the environmental lobby because I am un-

willing and refuse to sacrifice the goal of economic growth. It is a question of balancing the economic against the environmental factors. In this instance the balance, in my view and that of many hon. Members, is in danger of tilting too far against the environment.
I start by outlining briefly the facts of the present situation. British limits are 32 tons overall weight, 10 tons axle weight and 15 metres length for articulated vehicles. The EEC Commission, after 10 years of study, finally proposed in May a new regulation setting limits to operate from 1980 of 40 tonnes overall weight—these are metric tonnes, but the difference between the metric and the British imperial ton is not of great significance—11 tonnes axle weight and 15·5 metres length. This draft regulation was referred to the Council of Ministers and they, after postponing a decision once, are now due to meet on 18th December with the three applicant countries present.
Why are so many hon. Members on both sides of the House bitterly opposed to any increase in the size and weight of British lorries? The first reason obviously is the financial cost. The Minister has told us that, on his best estimate, it would cost £200 million over the next 10 or 15 years to strengthen roads and bridges to allow these heavier lorries to travel in Britain. I suppose that on some comparisons this is not a vast sum. Yet the annual cost is 10 times as much, for example, as the yield of museum charges—a mean measure that was pushed through the House of Commons with a three-line Whip to save public expenditure. I should think that hon. Members could find many better ways of spending £200 million than strengthening British bridges to cope with even bigger juggernauts.
But, in my view and probably that of many hon. Members, far more serious than the financial cost is the environmental cost. Today we are all in favour of the environment we are all in favour of the quality of life. The White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First", which we debated on Monday with the corresponding Bill, starts in its first sentence with the words:
The Government are committed to enhancing the quality of everyday life in Britain.
That is a ringing declaration indeed.
What effect would heavier lorries have on the quality of everyday life? We all know perfectly well that they would mean more noise, more discomfort for pedestrians, more deeply damaging vibration—we are still waiting for a detailed report on vibration from the Road Research Laboratory—more parking nuisance, more accidents, because heavy lorries are more accident-prone than lighter lorries, more damage to buildings and more pressure for road widening in historic towns and villages. In other words, it would mean not an improvement but a worsening of the quality of everyday life in Britain.
We do not want this creeping menace to our environment. This is the time to call a halt, and this is what the Motion intends.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Crosland: I am very near the beginning of my speech.

Mr. Lewis: Loss of railway revenue is important.

Mr. Crosland: It is very important indeed.

Mr. Lewis: Put them back on the railways.

Mr. Crosland: I shall come to British Rail in a moment. The trouble with early interventions is that they always allude to points which come later in one's speech.
Much of this argument has been conceded by the Minister because, when he was under heavy pressure in December 1970 to increase the maximum weight of vehicles, he refused to do so, largely on environmental grounds. In a Written Answer on 16th December, 1970 the Minister said:
I have decided not to allow the maximum weight of goods vehicles to be raised above 32 tons. I am primarily concerned that greater efforts should be made to reduce the noise, congestion and pollution which lorries cause, and to improve their ability to operate within the physical limitations of our road system." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 350.]
What was right then is right now. Nothing has changed in the interval to alter that decision.
In passing, I want to draw attention to a significant aspect of the Minister's

Statement—namely, that it was couched in terms of gross overall weight. The Government have put up a very successful smokescreen in recent months which has largely deceived the Press—which is only too easily deceived in matters like this—and have repeatedly said that what mattered was axle weight, not gross weight.
This is a new doctrine. The Minister's 1970 statement, which I have just quoted, made no reference to axle weight; it was framed entirely in terms of gross weight. It is not only a new doctrine, but also a false one. It is true that the financial cost of improving roads and strengthening bridges is largely dependent on axle weight; but the environmental damage—the noise, the congestion, the blocking of narrow streets, the accidents and the damage to buildings—is a function of gross weight and size.
The proposed increase in gross weight in the relevant EEC regulation is enormous. The increase in weight proposed is equivalent to the weight of a traditional double-decker bus. This is what the road hauliers want. They made their position clear in a letter to the Minister on 25th August 1972 in which they said:
We realise, however, that the Department … has consistently taken the view that it cannot accept an axle weight in excess of 10 imperial tons. If this view prevails we would nevertheless urge that it be taken in conjunction with the highest possible gross weight.
They want the highest possible gross weight. But that is not what the Motion says. The Motion is against bigger and heavier lorries, and that covers both gross weights and axle weights. We are told that that is what the Government are accepting tonight.
The Minister will, of course, reply very sympathetically. Indeed, to be realistic, he has no choice in the matter. He will tell us that he is grateful for the Motion, that he is deeply conscious of the threat that these heavier lorries pose to the environment, and that he is trying desperately to tame the monster —with a special advisory road network for heavy lorries, a national network of lorry parks, a whole stream of circulars going out to local authorities, and so on. I support all these endeavours on the part of the Minister. But how long will it be, to take a frequently quoted example, before the village of Bridge, in Kent, is


bypassed? How long will it be before all the other towns and villages in Britain are effectively bypassed? The answer is years and years. We are not prepared to wait for so long.
The trouble is that the Minister, like his previous boss, the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is a great deal better at talking about the environment than actually improving it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unfair."] It is not unfair at all, and most hon. Members know it as well as I do. They remind me of a cartoon in the New York Herald-Tribune some time ago of a company secretary reporting to the chairman: "So far we have spent 5,000 dollars curing pollution and 270,000 dollars bragging about it."
The Minister's overall transport policy is profoundly inimical to the environment. It is a policy of laissez-faire, decontrol and barely suppressed hostility to British Rail.
Let us make a comparison with some of the European countries. On this occasion it is the Common Market countries which are cast in the rôle of villains. But if we consider overall transport policies, we find that most of those countires have far more enlightened policies than we have. They support their railways better and they control their lorries better. As a result, the share of freight carried by road is much higher and the share of freight carried by rail is much lower in this country than in almost any other European country. According to the latest European figures, the road share of freight in Britain is 75 per cent. while in France it is 33 per cent., in the Netherlands 25 per cent. and in Germany 23 per cent. Britain is the only European country in which rail freight traffic has been declining since 1950.
It was that dangerous and damaging trend which persuaded the Labour Government, in the Transport Act 1968, to introduce the concept of quantity licensing, in an effort to reverse the trend away from rail. But the present Minister has refused to implement the provisions of the 1968 Act because he believes passionately in laissez-faire and decontrol. I quote something that he said in an interview with The Times on 25th

October 1972 which accurately expresses his philosophy:
We want the maximum freedom for road transport, while Europe flirts with systems of regulation partly to divert traffic to rail … We are against quotas as practised by France, Germany and Italy. I personally regard these as an abomination; a great restriction of freedom of movement, and denial of what transport is all about.
Evidently the Department of the Environment's document on the rail cuts, recently leaked and published in The Sunday Times, was an accurate expression of the Minister's philosophy.
The fact is that in this year of grace 1972 we cannot accept that philosophy. Transport cannot be left to the forces of unregulated laissez-faire, to purely private commercial choice or to what the Financial Times yesterday called "liberalism". It cannot because it involves far too many social and environmental costs which lie altogether outside the commercial balance sheet, and these are costs which more and more threaten the quality of everyday life which the Government purport to wish to enhance.
It is not a question of hostility to the road haulage industry, either to employers or to employees. I have many of both in my constituency, as other hon. Members do. Very tough and independent-minded citizens they are, and they are fully entitled to do everything that is permissible within the law. It is a question of saying that the balance of argument must now be tilted deliberately towards the environmental benefit, even at some economic cost, in the same way as we impose additional costs on other industries in the interests of preventing pollution. There is no question of singling out this industry.
We are informed by the Press, and the view is supported by the rapid exodus of hon. Gentlemen after the last Division, that the Government are proposing to accept the Motion—a prudent decision, if I may say so, though one dictated less by tender concern for the environment than by the hard-headed arithmetic of the Government Whips.
Assuming that the Motion is accepted, what obligations will be imposed on the Minister for Transport Industries? First, on 18th December at the ministerial meeting he will be obliged to say that


this regulation, on which it has taken 10 years to secure agreement, can wait for another two weeks. If it cannot wait for another two weeks Britain, shortly to join the Common Market, will not be bound by it.
Assuming that no final decision is taken on 18th December—and it would be incredible if it were—after 1st January, when Britain is a full member of the Community, the matter will again come up before the Council of Ministers and the decision there will have to be unanimous.
What attitude will the Minister take then, assuming that he attends the Council of Ministers? The answer is that all he has to do is to consult his right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for the Environment who is sitting 2 ft. to his left, because the Secretary of State made the whole position clear when introducing the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill. He said on that occasion:
A United Kingdom Minister will sit on the Council"—
that is the Council of Ministers—
where it is recognised that decisions are not taken which may conflict with the vital national interests of a member State. … No Government would proceed on a matter of major policy in the Council unless they knew that they had the approval of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 274]
On this issue the Government know that they do not have the approval of the House and, therefore, they cannot proceed. But if, in defiance of the Motion, they tried to proceed, they would be defeated in the attempt, because to implement the regulation they would have to introduce an order under the Road Traffic Act 1972, and that order would certainly be rejected by the House. I hope that the Government Chief Whip is listening to this with close attention, because it may become a matter of some concern to him later.
All this is quite as it should be, and I speak as a moderate supporter of the Communities. I do not share the obsession of some people about national sovereignty. I think that we must, and should, and already do, surrender sovereignty when international considerations are involved—for example in mat-

ters of defence, foreign policy, international trade and international pollution. But the size of heavy lorries in Britain is not such an issue. It is wholly a matter for us to decide. It affects nobody but ourselves. There is no call for surrender here of British interests in the interests of some wider need or wider harmonisation. It is a decision for us and us alone, and what we say now in this House—and I believe that we echo opinion in the country—is that enough is enough. We say this in no anti-internationalist spirit.
We are determined not to agree, and, incidentally, not to agree only a few short weeks before the European Architectural Heritage Year opens under the auspices of the Council of Europe—which is ironic enough—that at some future date even bigger and heavier lorries shall rumble along the roads of Lincolnshire, through the villages of Kent, through historic towns up and down the country and through the metropolitan centre of our own capital city in Parliament Square. That, I believe, is the strong, unambiguous and unanimous will of the House of Commons.

7.58 p.m.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I should like to start by assuring the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that I am not going to waste the time of the House with a long procession of oily thanks to him for his speech or for the Motion. There are very few comments that I should like to make on his speech, save that I agree with the first things that he said, with his acknowledgement that this debate is not directed against the Community, and with his tremendous acknowledgement of the importance of economic growth and the part in it played by the lorry. I suppose those are all things to be mildly welcomed, but beyond that I leave the right hon. Gentleman's speech because I shall deal with many of the points that he made in the course of making my own. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, anybody would have thought that he or his right hon. and hon. Friends had never had any responsibility for the affairs of this country. I profoundly wish that they had not.
I should prefer that lorries should not get either bigger or heavier, and even more am I concerned that axle loads,


to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as a smokescreen—which was a pity—should not increase. I have expressed these views for the last two years not only in the European Conference of Ministers of Transport but also to individual Ministers from the Six and to the Commission and, latterly, to the Council of Ministers.
I have pressed in particular three arguments: first, the unrewarding and higher expenditure on maintaining and strengthening roads and bridges; secondly, the intrusion upon the environment in terms not only of physical damage but also of congestion, noise and fumes; and lastly, I have even used the argument, old-fashioned though it may seem to some, that people find these larger vehicles offensive and do not want them—a view which is, I am sure, widely shared in Europe.
I have explained to the Ministers of the Six and to the Commission how totally unacceptable it would be to public opinion here if a policy which was not intended to be effective before 1980 were to be pushed through a few weeks, and now only a few days, before our entry and against the strongly declared wishes of all three acceding countries. I could not, without denying all the arguments which I have used in Europe, do other than accept the Motion on behalf of the Government.
In doing so, I would make only one reservation. None of us can see the future or assess the pressures which may arise, but I assure the House that, having heard this debate and being conscious of the views expressed. I shall have them very much in mind.
It is right that we should remind ourselves, as the right hon. Gentleman did, of the immense part played by the heavy lorry in our commercial and economic life. Nor should we ignore the benefits to be obtained, both for manufacturers and for importers, of a degree of harmonisation, a development which would particularly benefit our export trade.
Among the Six, as elsewhere, there are differences of opinion. Only with difficulty and after many years of debate did they reach agreement. It is hardly surprising now that, even though that com-

promise may be somewhat unsatisfactory, they are reluctant to see the results of their labours put in jeopardy. It is fair that I should acknowledge that they have been every bit as good as their word in giving to the acceding countries a full opportunity to express their views—an opportunity which will be renewed on 18th December.
Lorries have been getting steadily bigger for many years. I called a halt to the process in this country, because there was on the stocks when I took office a proposal that the overall weight of vehicles should go up to 44 tons.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Would the Minister make it absolutely clear that the proposal was from the industry and was nothing to do with the Government, and that I had set up an environmental committee whose report he kindly recommended when he made his announcement?

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry—certainly no innuendo against the right hon. Gentleman was intended in my remarks—but there was on the stocks a proposal when I took office. It did not come from the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then say so."] I am certainly prepared to say so. The right hon. Gentleman has an easy conscience; it is his hon. Friends who seem so disturbed about it.
I remain concerned, if vehicles do grow at all in weight or size, that this should be only for the most powerful reasons and subject to strict limitation as to routes. The rule that a vehicle should be free to go almost literally wherever it can burst a passage is both brutal and archaic and should be discarded.
Opinions still vary, of course, as to how the conflicting claims of transport economics and the environment should be reconciled where overall weights are concerned. We in this country restrict them to 32 tons. At the other end of the scale, the Dutch allow them to g3 up to 50 tons. The proposal now before the Council of Ministers is for 40 tons.
Greater unanimity and, I think, greater importance attach to axle loadings. I would stress that it is these that are responsible for the weight of the impact upon the track and for the vibration which


damages buildings and bridges. Three Common Market countries have a 10-ton limit at present. They, like the other three, of course, have been ready to negotiate on this point. The three acceding countries, including ourselves, have the same limit, 10 tons—as, incidentally, do almost all States in the United Sates of America. At a recent meeting of the Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva, Sweden, Switzerland and Russia joined Austria, Poland and Yugoslavia in accepting the same figure.
I am sure that we all welcomed the expressions of high concern for the quality of life which were contained in the recent Summit communiqué. It is the willingness of Europe now to allow those sentiments to be translated into practical policies that is under test.
It would be wrong—I think that the righ hon. Gentleman acknowledged this—if this debate were conducted as if the problem of the heavy lorry were one which emanated solely from Europe and had no native significance. I will therefore devote the second part of my speech to summing up what we have done since we have been in office to restrain the lorry.
As I said, I rejected a proposal to raise the overall weight to 44 tons. We have taken powers to stop at the ports all foreign vehicles which, either by reason of their size or by reason of their loading, do not comply with our laws. Previously, our own laws were virtually unenforceable. I am intensifying the enforcement effort generally. We are now engaged in constructing adequate road links between the docks and the motorway network—a process which will be completed by about the mid-70s Towns and villages are being bypassed, a process which I intend should be further stepped up.
We have embarked upon a substantial research programme aimed at the radical reduction, if not elimination, of the atrocious noise made by heavy vehicles. To deal with the nuisance of diesel smoke and fumes, I have just brought into force new manufacturing standards and substantially increased spot checks on vehicles in use. I recently published a manual giving guidance on special loading. A £10 million programme to build up a national network of lorry parks is now under way.
I have initiated discussions with both local authorities and industry in order to achieve a system of restricting vehicles to roads capable of accommodating them.
Advisory signs to guide heavy vehicles on special routes will start to appear in the ports next spring. I have also started a programme of detailed research into the problem of distribution in towns. I am very grateful for the co-operation of the road haulage industry and other users of transport in this matter. I do not believe that that total of activity adds up to the right hon. Gentleman's charge of laissez-faire.
It would be hard, I think, to overstate the need for industry generally and local authorities to comply with the growing and not unreasonable demand that the lorry should be civilised. While I do not seek for a moment to put on one side the strong feelings of the public, properly reflected here, I am confident that the House will have in mind, so far as Europe is concerned, that we are currently engaged in negotiations.
As to the general issue of lorries, I am equally sure that the House will not wish to ignore the immense contributions made by these so-called "juggernauts" to industry and commerce in an island abundantly furnished with factories, warehouses and shops to which their services are indispensable. The House will also be aware, I am sure, that the blow to employment if the lorry were senselessly fettered would be incalculable.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister was less than frank with the House when he indicated that proposals were on the stocks to increase weights up to 44 tons when he took office.

Mr. Peyton: I want to get this absolutely straight. There was a proposal. I am very sorry if anyone took it that I meant that it had emanated from the previous Government. It did not.

Mr. Morris: The matter is on the record of the House. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) had not intervened, I wonder whether the typescript of the Minister's speech, which he was reading, would have made it abundantly clear and exonerated the previous Government. Had it


not been for the intervention of my right hon. Friend, no such explanation would have been given, and it would have been left to the judgment of the House and the country.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman can have access to that piece of typescript, but he will find no reference to that project.

Mr. Morris: In that case, one wonders why the Minister had no intention of telling the House the whole story, which necessitated my right hon. Friend's intervention.
It is the view of many that, whatever the outcome of the EEC negotiations on this subject, the size, length and weight of lorries has already gone too far on our roads today. Anyone who drives on the roads of London or those of our great urban areas knows the difficulties of motorists and lorry drivers. They know the difficulties of lorry drivers seeking to cope with the immense cargoes they try to propel, and of motorists trying to cope with the problems which face them.
Secondly, I am confident that this must be a moment of truth for the Europeans among us because generally there is a realisation that we are bound by the past. Up to 1st January all that we can do is to face a book that is closed. We can wriggle, and euphemistically we are told that we can be consulted. But we are prisoners of the past, in which we had no hand. Against that background, why is there a hurry now to convene these meetings on 18th/ 19th December, when 1st January is so close? All these matters have been negotiated over the last 10 years, and the Commission is loth to begin once again.
I was intrigued by the Minister's statement reported in the Financial Times on 7th November that he thought and hoped that the Council would leave the matter open until early next year. If it does not do that, we shall be faced with a fait accompli and we shall be able to do nothing about it.
That is what some of the European Ministers want. We were told again on the 7th November by the Financial Times of a comment by the Luxembourg Minister of Transport, that a decision

must be taken this year. But why before 1st January, as these regulations will not come into effect until 1980 for international traffic and 1985 for domestic traffic? Why the hurry now?
After 1st January, in the words of the new Secretary of State for the Environment which have been quoted to us, we are told that we shall have a great influence in negotiations. But it will be the same kind of negotiations, and if the Minister fails on 18th/19th December, are there any expectations of greater success in any other negotiations after 1st January? If the matter slips over to 1st January, if this hurry is not continued and the matter is delayed, then we shall have, as we have been told from time to time, the great power of the veto.
May we have an assurance tonight that if the matter is deferred until 1st January and comes up again, as undoubtedly it will, the Government will then exercise their veto, as we have been told time and again by the Secretary of State, and that this will be the great power that we shall have to protect our essential national interests?
What is the battle really about? Is it only about axle weights? We should be quite clear that more than one issue is involved. There are axle weights, gross weights and, following and consequent upon those, the length of vehicles as a whole. It would be at the Minister's peril if in whatever battles he wages about axle weights he ignored or attached insufficient importance to gross weights and total length. The history of the matter is that the size of vehicles has grown. We should stop to consider where the start line was. In 1947 all lorries had a 22-ton gross weight limitation. Over the years that has grown. From 1947 onwards, the weights for rigid lorries rose in 1955, 1966 and 1972. Articulated lorry weights crept up in the same manner. Now we face an increase from 32 tons to 40 gross tons. That is an increase of 25 per cent. on the present limitation and almost double what it was in 1947.
When people mouth expressions about the qualify of life, it is against this spectrum that we have to consider present-day developments. Regarding axle loads and the increase from 10 tons to 11 tons, I am sure the Minister has done his best


in the circumstances to put the case of the immense expenditure that would be involved on British roads if the limitation on axle loads rose. Only a few years ago a great deal of money had to be expended in Britain in order to increase and improve railway bridges and to ensure that they were made safe. Having regard to one's experience at that time £200 million may not be sufficient.
I accept that road traffic has risen and will continue to rise, but it is against that background that I fear that some of the Government's expressions sound fairly hollow when one remembers the agitation from the Government side of the House when we who were sponsoring the Transport Bill in 1967 tried to introduce quantity licensing; for purely doctrinaire reasons that was not implemented by the present Government. Perhaps that is the key to part of this matter; not to the whole of it, I concede, but it would shift some of the burden.
In conclusion, it is odd that The Times should have said on 20th May this year that the overall weight rising to 40 gross tons is not regarded as so serious in Britain.
The Sunday Times said something to similar effect:
Yet the British Government seems prepared to accept some gross weight increase up to less than 40 tons. What is more, the Government apparently has no objections to increasing the length from the present 15 metres to 15½.
The present Minister has a similar view. As recently as 7th November this year he said that he and the Government would be more flexible on gross weight than on some of the other matters.
Therefore, the Government should be quite clear tonight and should come clean with us. Are they battling on the three points, axle weights, gross weights and total length? Is the Minister more flexible about gross weight? Are the Government likely to concede, to allow the increase from 32 tons to 40 tons, or something much in excess of 32 tons? Will they allow these increases to continue as they have over the years? If they intend that, this should be made quite clear. If that is the intention, to fight the battle solely on axle weights and to concede it on the other two grounds, then the words in the debate we had on

Monday about the importance of the quality of life, which the Government mentioned in their White Paper, sound very hollow indeed to anyone who wants to drive on Britain's roads.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: It is my first happy task to thank the Opposition for providing the time to debate what is to all intents and purposes an all-party Motion which I initiated on the Order Paper the week before last. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). I also thank the Government for accepting the Motion. A backbencher can seldom act as a catalyst for uniting the House of Commons on a matter as important as this, and I am proud to have had that happy experience.
I have undertaken to speak briefly, and I do not consider it necessary to rehearse in detail all the arguments for restricting the size, weight and axle load of heavy lorries. When, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby said, all four local authority associations which are the planning authorities, the authorities responsible for conservation, and which will have to meet the bill for damage and deal with the widening of streets in towns and villages, are against the increase, when the Royal Institute of British Architects is expressing extreme concern on architectural grounds about the threat to buildings, to the environment and to the towns and cities, and when the Minister expresses himself in such terms it is obvious that the situation is serious and must not be allowed to get worse.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) that size, length and gross weight are as important as axle load. It is essential that they should not increase. The scale of our landscape and the scale of our historic towns and villages simply will not accept vehicles larger than are permitted at the moment. The Government, the House and the Europeans must recognise that we are here faced with a vicious circle in three ways. It is easy enough to talk about it being legitimate or reasonable to increase the size and axle load of lorries provided that better roads are built for them. But the moment that bigger and better roads are constructed


for heavy lorries the number of heavy lorries increases to take advantage of them. That in its turn produces indirect effects on the unloading points, on the feeder routes of the new motorways and so forth, and the process is almost never-ending.
There is also a second vicious effect. Any increase in the size of these heavy lorries reduces the operating costs of distribution. It follows that competition with the railways becomes greater and that there is a further diversion from rail to road when everyone knows that this diversion should, if anything, be halted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give careful attention to the evidence that the restriction of the British Railways' capital development programme is resulting in them moving from their freight lines a significant amount of rolling-stock which they are not able to replace, in particular, for example, on the trunk route from Southampton. That is already resulting in freight that was carried by rail being diverted to the roads simply because British Rail cannot now cope with it. The Government should give urgent attention to that aspect of the problem.
The third vicious circle is that if the size of heavy lorries is increased further and the costs of distribution are reduced, that reduction is achieved not just out of the blue. It is not a total reduction in costs; it is simply a case of the operators transferring the costs from themselves to others—namely, the public. The heavy lorry makes a substantial contribution to the cost of roads through its licence fees and its fuel tax. But the heavy lorry operator does not bear the social cost of the dislocation of traffic in towns, the long-term damage to historic buildings and the making of the main streets of villages intolerable to the people who live there.
Those are the costs which are passed on by the heavy lorry operator to the public, to the pedestrian, to the motorist, the shopper and the owner of residential property on the routes frequented by the juggernauts. These facts must always be taken into account in consideration of the crude economics of the argument. In the Industrial Revolution we blighted in the name of private enter-

prise, laissez-faire, free enterprise and profit, a very substantial part of the environment of this country, some of it permanently. The people of this country are in no mood to allow this to be repeated by modern technology. The Government must recognise the strength of public feeling, which is virtually unanimous. The manufacturers of heavy lorries do not feel strongly about this question. They are prepared to work to a double standard for this country and for export sales. They object, however, to being restricted here and to having to compete with vehicles of a greater size which are allowed into this country. The Government have taken steps to deal with that to some extent.
The strength of public feeling on the issue is so great—that feeling is almost unanimous among the public and among all the recognised authorities who have to cope with the effects of the problem—that if tonight we have a unanimous resolution opposing any increase in the size or axle loads of heavy lorries it will not only strengthen the Minister's negotiating position but should weigh very heavily with those who have to make a decision in Brussels. I say not just to the Government but, if it is permissible here to talk over the Government's head, to the Commission in Brussels that the people of this country not only feel desperately strongly about this but that they have at their disposal innumerable methods, most of them within the law but some without it, to make it impossible for heavier lorrries to operate in this country.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) deserves the congratulations of the House on the motion that he and several other hon. Members tabled, as do the Opposition for their valuable motion on a matter of broad public concern.
Although we all abominate the juggernauts, the fact is that they are already with us. Despite what the Minister for Transport Industries said in opening, our capacity to control them is not very well developed. It is very difficult to argue the statement that many heavy vehicles are already breaking the existing regulations. We have no adequate way to check or prevent that. That is the present


situation, rather than one that might develop if the Communities were unwise enough to adopt the proposal to increase the total weight limits from 32 tons to 40 tons and the axle loading from 10 tons to 11 tons.
I understand that in Kent, the main thoroughfare through which continental vehicles pass, the inspectorate for checking the weight of vehicles is well under strength. About 300 lorries a day pour through Dover, yet there is no weighbridge near enough to the docks. There is no effective way to introduce systematic checks. Therefore, it is small wonder that so many regard overloading as an acceptable risk. There is no effective way to check overloading despite what the Minister says.
I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions in referring to the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act, the attempt to control and the increase in the powers and penalties, but at the end of the day it is not only in regard to expenditure on roads that the Government must demonstrate their political will. They must also do so in regard to the capacity to police overloading effectively, if we are to do anything about it.
I agree that we cannot put back the clock and ban the large juggernauts altogether. They have a major rôle in long-distance transport—but on roads which can carry them, and in the context of a national transportation policy which exploits to the full our existing rail network.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that Britain more than any other EEC country with the possible exception of France—I think I heard an interruption to that effect from behind me—carries more of its freight on the roads. He gave the figure of 75 per cent. That in itself is an exceptionally strong argument for the United Kingdom to make to the Community in discussing the regulations on 18th December.
On a European level, the plan must in the end be dropped. Any argument that. Britain should be an exception would not make sense to me, because it would be a dangerous precedent. It would mean that a text with general significance in the Community would not be applicable in all aspects to all member States, and that would be wrong. But the Govern-

ment have a duty to apply every possible pressure to the Governments of the Six.
As a convinced European who has many times argued for entry into the EEC, I cannot believe that any member of the Six would wish the enlargement of the Communities to be heralded by a political and legal disagreement of the nature which would ensue if the regulations were introduced. As the Minister said, it is not only on our own behalf that we can advance an argument. We can do so also in conjunction with the Irish and the Danes, who have the same regulations as we already have and who take the same standpoint. Just a few days away from the accession of the new member States, the Six will surely never decently—and I emphasise the word—approve a directive which would go so much against the wishes of its new members.

8.33 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) is right. The weight of the giant lorry is falling mainly in South-East Kent. As I live on the slopes of the North Downs, overlooking Wrotham and Ightham, I see many of their journeys. Much more so does my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who, perhaps more than anyone else, is directly concerned with the need for the rapid building of a motorway between Canterbury and Dover.

Mr. David Crouch: Hear, hear.

Sir R. Cary: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries will make that one of his first priorities. Even if he does, I gather that it will take three to four years to build the motorway.

Mr. Crouch: Eight.

Sir R. Cary: Dear, oh dear. Life is getting worse.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that public feeling on the matter in south-East Kent is becoming very intense. That is the main impact of the moment, and I will not waste the time of the House by speculating about what it will mean to some other parts


of the country if it is not checked or stopped.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) was a little unfair to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries when he used the expression "On the stocks". I accepted it as a general expression which I have heard used frequently in transport conferences in the industry over the last five or six years. The phrase was used in that context and was not a party matter.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the vigorous and energetic way in which he has defended British interests in the last 12 months in his negotiations with the members of the Six.

Mr. Stanley Orme: With his hands tied behind his back.

Sir R. Cary: I know the immense trouble which my right hon. Friend has taken to make himself as well informed as anybody could be in two years about a complicated matter like the transport industries of our country and those which exist abroad. He has brought credit to the House and to the Government by the vigorous way in which he has defended in all quarters, at Brussels and elsewhere, the British interests that we are now trying to sustain.
I have two short points, and I must accept that this is an occasion for brevity. The Common Market cannot have one blanket law for axle weight and size of vehicles covering nine countries whose topography, distances and road conditions are as full of contrasts as our own. When a flat country like Holland is compared to the undulating topography of this country, it is ludicrous to put forward a blanket limit for both axle weight and size of load.
We must make the Government more determined to provide a system of road construction to carry the greater loads which must come in the years ahead. I agree with the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that this occasion is not a means of destroying for all time the bigger lorry. There is a case for the bigger lorry. But my right hon. Friend must plead at Brussels for this country to be given sufficient time, perhaps a number of years, to prepare

our country for greater vehicles. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the House is to say "No" at any time to bigger lorries—

Mr. Neil Marten: Until further evidence.

Sir R. Cary: I have heard that expression before. It would be inflexible and unthinking of the Six to try to force a decision on this matter on the three new members on 18th December. When I listened to the threatening tone in the news this morning regarding this matter, I was rather depressed. If the Six do act against our national interests, I shall not be sending any Christmas cards to Brussels. Neither shall I be blowing my tin trumpet in the fanfare on 1st January for people who behave in such an inflexible and unthinking way to an extremely good member joining their club.
I hope that the Six will not press my right hon. Friend too hard. I hope that if any new decision is to be taken the House will be allowed to consider it in its own time when we are a member of the Community.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. James White: It is fair to say that at least I am one of the few Members of this House to hold a heavy goods licence. For the major part of my working life outside the House I was a long-distance lorry driver, so I speak with some authority in seeing things from the cab. It rather amuses me that when we start to talk about bigger vehicles everything is mentioned except the stress on the driver. The voice of the lorry driver is overdue for a hearing.
The Minister said that from next spring selected routes will be operated from various docks. What selected routes are we to have in Scotland? Scotland has 82 miles of motorway, but not continuous. Thus, lorry drivers coming 300 miles from London in motorway conditions find themselves suddenly on a dual carriageway, often with sheep crossing the road or a tractor towing a trailer on to the road. This is one of the reasons why so many people are killed and injured on these roads in Scotland.
The lorries from Europe operate the bunk-bed system, which we abolished in 1933 or 1934. According to the European


regulations, a driver is allowed to work only eight hours a day; a British driver can drive for 10 hours. There is no limit, however, on how many hours the European drivers can work. It appears to me that we are taking backward steps in our transport policy. The Scottish Daily Express, in a very good article recently, said that the real shame of Scotland was the condition of our roads and that it was ludicrous to talk in 1972 about having 82 miles of motorway. It pointed out that we are not equipped to take the type of vehicles that we have already.
It is fair to point out just how efficient and economic British Rail is becoming. It must surely be our ambition not just not to have bigger lorries on our roads but to get more traffic as a whole off the roads and on to the railways.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: I do not speak with the specialised knowledge of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James White) but I think I may claim a special interest—a special interest recognised by both the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). The brunt of this heavy traffic is borne by Dover in particular and East Kent in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will concede that probably the problem is more acute in Dover than it is in his constituency.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: You both suffer very much.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that fact. The number of TIR vehicles leaving and arriving at our shores through Dover last year totalled 85,000, plus 25,000 trailers. Add nearly 1 million passenger cars and try to imagine how that traffic can be squeezed through Dover between the Castle and the Western Heights; hon. Members will appreciate the sensitivity of my constituents on the problem.
We talk about the environment and our concern for it, and we must all recognise that there is nearly always an economic price to be paid for our concern. In this case, possibly the economic price will be increased transport costs, but it is a price which East Kent will be prepared

to pay not only in the dog days of July, when passenger cars stretch four miles back from the docks, but all the year round when huge lorries come through, because these vehicles are destructive not only to the fabric of houses but of sleep and civilised existence and even of life itself and the narrow streets of our towns and villages which were not designed for them.
We are all agreed in the debate on the general principles and therefore I want to make a few constructive suggestions, some of them already touched on by my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has shown considerable sensitivity towards this problem. First, I hope that he will spur on local authorities and encourage the private development of lorry parks with customs facilities near our docks. There is no point in siting lorry parks deep in the countryside. We need them as close to the docks as they can be conveniently sited. This is partly a matter of private development and partly a matter for the local authorities.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will press on with the installation of permanent weighbridges, or encourage those responsible to do so. At Dover we have only what is called a mobile weighbridge and it is barely sufficient for the purpose. We shall need a permanent one next year.
It was recognised in the debate on the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act—I am surprised that Opposition Members have not drawn attention to that Act, because it has been the single most constructive contribution of the present Administration to solving this problem—that the place to check these lorries is not on the highways but at the point of entry.
Finally, will the Minister develop further the plans—and I know that the prime responsibility lies with the local authorities—to keep these massive lorries off narrow country lanes, except for access purposes? This problem must be studied in much greater depth, for we suffer acutely from it in East Kent.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Another suggestion, which I am sure the hon. and learned Member will accept, is that if the Minister insisted that the goods came into Harwich and were loaded straight on to container trains and carried by rail to their destinations, Dover, Canterbury and


other country areas would be greatly assisted.

Mr. Rees: I am not over-concerned above the port of Harwich. Provided that we have the right facilities, I welcome the traffic at Dover. After all, it is our staple industry. If there were more time I could develop the theme of the impact of the Channel Tunnel on East Kent, but that would enlarge the debate beyond its present ambit and it would certainly prevent other hon. Members from intervening.
How far could freight rail services be improved and tailored to take traffic off the roads? This is not a matter of imposing quantity limits which could not, I think, be justified on this side of the House as a matter of principle. The railways must be tailored to lure traffic back to them. This must be a matter of commercial choice and judgment and not of Government diktat.
I do not want to send my right hon. Friend into the negotiating chamber in Brussels on 18th December bound hand and foot, but I want to leave him in no doubt about the strength of feeling in my constituency. I conclude by following a recent Royal precedent and saying "Bigger and heavier vehicles on British roads—I am against them".

8.49 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: I shall not try to compete with Conservative Members and say which constituency in the South-East of England is most congested by heavy lorries, but I remind them that this is a problem throughout the country, no less a problem in the hill districts of the Pennines and rural Wales than it is in South-East England. The feeling is as rife in those other parts of the country.
Although succinctly centred around the lorries, the debate is wider than that in the sense that we are discussing the good will of the Community, whether it will force through this decision on 18th December or have the good will to wait until we are full members on 1st January. It is even wider than that, because we are discussing whether we are to allow social and environmental costs to be overridden by purely commercial values. That is the nub of the debate.
All hon. Members agree that we have come far enough along this road and that we are not prepared to allow lorry sizes to be increased by one iota. I do not share the point of view of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that this is only a stalling operation. If we are to say "No", we should say it now and not try to put off the decision until next year or the year after.
I want to outline some of the reasons why I think we should not have these lorries. Basically there are the environmental reasons. We are different from Continental countries because we have more vehicles per kilometre and therefore we are far more congested than most other countries. This puts a completely different complexion on the situation. Not only is damage being caused to historic churches, which are vitally important, but it is also being caused to the terraced houses in the North, alongside the main trunk roads. They are persistently suffering from cracked roofs and walls. If we get these heavy lorries, matters will be worsened. I need not mention the noise problem because it is obvious to us all.
The other main objection is that of cost. On the Minister's own figures it will cost about £200 million to strengthen the roads and bridges. This is probably an under-estimate. If we work out the cost of strengthening gas mains and service mains, such as water, it will probably be considerably higher. We are already seeing evidence, even with newly-laid natural gas lines, of the lorries causing fractures in the pipes. In my constituency last week 150 people had to be evacuated because of this happening. Heavy lorries would make the position much worse.
The other principal reason why we should oppose these lorries is simply to do with safety. I am not for a moment arguing that heavy lorries will be any less safe than other vehicles when they come out of the factories. I am sure that with modern technological innovations they would be safer. However, human nature being what it is and our system of checking and inspection being what it is, it will be difficult to impose the necessary standards of safety. I was horrified to receive an answer from the Minister for Transport Industries last week saying that


20 per cent. of the foreign lorries examined at Dover were found to be overweight and that two of those lorries were 80 per cent. overweight. When we bear in mind the fact that if a lorry is 20 per cent. overweight its braking is 5 per cent. less efficient, according to the brake manufacturers, we can immediately see the dangers involved. In the hilly terrain of this country we are almost daily hearing of runaway lorries and almost weekly we are confronted with fatalities.
What are the Government to do about it? We have had Mr. Coppé, the Commissioner for Transport of the Community, saying that this is a "necessary sacrifice". It may be for him but certainly the British people, while they see it as a sacrifice, do not regard it as a necessary one. That is the point which the Secretary of State should make. I want to be quite blunt and ask him whether, if the decision is deferred until we are full members of the Community, he regards the subject of heavy lorries as being one of vital national interest and whether he is prepared to use his veto if necessary. We should have an answer to that.

Mr. Marten: I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that; he may not get it in the wind-up speech. My right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment said on 15th February, 1972, in the Second Reading debate on the European Communities Bill:
assuming that a question arose on which there had been strong feelings in this House"—
which there are tonight—
prima facie it would be a matter in the national interests and a British Minister would have power to insist in the Council of Ministers that it was a matter of major national importance which required a unanimous decision and that he could not be part of that unanimous decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 277–8.]
That was the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is now the responsible Minister and he will keep his word, of course. I challenge anyone who doubts that to a duel outside.

Mr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said in defence of the Minister. I only hope that it is correct.
I have been worried by the Minister's phrase about not being "shoe-horned" into accepting 40-ton lorries. I believe that the Minister has at times been less than frank with the House when discussing the implications of entry to the Common Market. I hope he has not spoken in this respect as a toothless tiger and that when he goes to the Commission he will insist on adherence to the feelings of the British people.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Simeons: The matters which we are discussing will not be implemented in Europe until 1980. A lot can happen between now and then and many opinions can alter. I suspect that by 1980 the motorway from Dover to Canterbury will have been built.
We are talking not about all the fleet of lorries but about only a percentage of it—I guess 20 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or 25 per cent."] Perhaps 25 per cent. But the lorries do not drive around like minis or weave in and out like taxis. Just as much havoc is caused as a result of lamp posts having been knocked over by minis as is caused by lorries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members are entitled to their opinion. However, as I say, we are not talking about all lorries; we are talking about a limited number. There are means of diverting a limited number of vehicles so that the environment is protected.
We should make distinctions between three things: size, weight, and the pressure on the roads or axle weights. First, heavier lorries do not mean bigger lorries because a 32-tonner and a 40-tonner can be identical in size, as the Department of Trade and Industry confirmed today. There may a difference of only 20 inches betwen a 32-tonner and a 44-tonner, and that is hardly noticeable.
The main point is that the difference in the payload or carrying capacity of a 32-tonner compared with a 44-tonner is 10 tons. The choice is between a number of lorries which are no bigger than at present but which are able to carry much bigger weights, or very many more lorries. I suspect that in two or three years' time we shall all unite one evening in saying that there should be fewer lorries. What is proposed is the way to achieve that.
Our immediate choice is lorries of acceptable weight and identical length. We must decide what they should be. The greatest influence on choice is the international standards which are accepted by rail and sea within Europe and in this country of containers with a maximum length of 40 ft. and a maximum weight of 30 tons. Some hon. Members say that goods should be picked up from the docks and put on the railways. But they cannot be taken off the railways and put on lorries without re-packing them. The chaos and industrial strife which would result from that is too enormous to contemplate. Therefore, we must decide what we shall have. If we are to put goods on the railways, we must have lorries which can take the containers. If we are concerned about the effect on some of our villages of 40-footers weighing 30 tons, we must have two 20-footer containers which go to certain points on lorries and are then split on to smaller lorries to be taken into no-go areas.
Looking towards Europe, there can be little doubt that we shall be governed by our present rolling and container stock. I predict without too much fear of contradiction that by the time 1980 arrives we shall have lorries of identical length but capable of carrying a greater weight.
I live at the end of the runway at Luton Airport. The aircraft industry is overcoming the noise problem by having bigger aeroplanes with much more modern engines. The industry says that it will soon be able to produce quieter engines. The fact that a lorry is bigger does not mean that it is noisier. Two important factors to consider are road surfaces and types of tyre.

Mr. Maude: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that one of the greatest sources of noise from heavy lorries is empty lorries returning after they have dumped their loads. It is when they bounce over uneven road surfaces that they wake everybody up in the middle of the night.

Mr. Simeons: People who run empty lorries are inefficient and should go out of business. If my hon. Friend's constituents do this they should go out of business and my hon. Friend would not worry any more.

Mr. Maude: They are not my constituents. The lorries just pass through my constituency.

Mr. Simeons: The owners of those lorries will go out of business.
The fact that smaller lorries necessarily means more lorries might be an incentive to manufacturers. They know that British users are already importing large continental lorries, although they are not using them to capacity. They can see that this is the direction in which things are going.
We must ensure that we are guided tonight not by emotion but by what we believe will happen in 1980 when the regulations are implemented. Above all, manufacturers want to have standardised lorries. They want to have a good home base, and from this they can sell to the continent. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that manufacturers will accept making a type for the home market and a type for abroad, but there is great merit in making only one type if this is what continentals will do.
If we have smaller lorries we shall have a greater number, they will be more expensive, and more money will be invested. I believe that by 1980 the thoughts that are being expressed tonight will be out-dated and that lorries greater in capacity but not greater in measurement will be replacing the present ones just as the TriStar does the BAC-111.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons), because he has gone some way at least towards putting the matter in its true perspective. We are talking tonight of less than 2 per cent. of the commercial vehicle population. There are about 1·6 million commercial vehicles, of which only 55,000 weigh over 8 tons gross. Less than 2 per cent. of those would be 32 tons gross. Far fewer would be likely to want to go up to 40 tons gross even if permission were granted in future.
I cannot help feeling that tonight we are undergoing some kind of cruel deception, because the passage of this Motion will not do anything to alleviate the situation which applies in the constituency of the hon. Member for


Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and in some very hazardous villages on the way to Harwich and Dover. Instead of talking in generalised terms about forbidding weight increases, we would do better to get down to tackling the serious problems which apply in many constituencies, for which I have tremendous sympathy.
It is right to say that there is hardly any size difference between lorries of 32 and 40 tons gross. In fact, we are talking about the same 40-ton standard international containers, the same 15-metre trailers, and, indeed, exactly the same kind of lorries—except that, if this Motion is accepted tonight, they will be only half loaded. Therefore, we are talking about not what one can see on the roads but what one cannot see—and that is what is inside the containers and trailers. I wish that this evening many speeches had dealt with the question of how we are to enforce the regulations. The difficulty is that it is not what the police can see on the roads; it is what will be inside the same kind of containers and carried by the same 15-metre trailers.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I hope I may be allowed to finish this point before giving way. The House should be concentrating on the question of how to enforce the standards, bearing in mind that we cannot even enforce the present ones. The consequences of the Motion, which no doubt will be accepted on both sides of the House, is that we shall have many half-empty containers and trailers. As a result we shall seriously disadvantage ourselves in competition with Rotterdam, and will lose the economies of scale which will be available to other countries.

Mr. Dykes: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that when the new parking restrictions were introduced, with yellow lines and traffic meters in city centres, precisely the same arguments were used about enforcement in terms of traffic wardens?

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in favour of more lorry parking restrictions. However, I cannot help feeling that we are again making the wrong assessment about axle loads. It is not axle loads which we should be

considering but axle spacings. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment has been briefed by his civil servants that it is the distance between the two axles on the tandem of the trailer which determines the weight the wheels put on the road. I should like some further elucidation by the Secretary of State about how we arrive at a figure of £200 million. I am sure that neither the Transport and Road Research Laboratory nor the universities which carry out research into this matter know that nobody appears to know where that figure comes from.
Mention has also been made of pay-load. It is a fact that the payload of a 40-tonner—which is 39 tons Imperial weight—is 27 tons, and that the payload of a 32-tonner is only 22 tons. Consequently, some 40 lorries of 22-ton carrying capacity means only 32 lorries of 27-ton carrying capacity. If the weight were to go even higher—I do not advocate such a step—the number of lorries could be reduced even further. Because of the increase in the lorry sizes since 1966 there has been almost 1 per cent. decrease in the number of commercial vehicles on the roads.
I should like to put a point of view from the drivers' angle because I, too, have been a driver, though I cannot claim the same length of service in that capacity as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James White). I should like to point out that lorry drivers do not like driving large vehicles through small villages. They, too, are concerned about the environment and concerned lest this country introduces vehicles which are too large.
The other point which must be made is that a lorry driver today is a very skilled man and has to possess a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence. The House might be interested to learn that at present there is a 40 per cent. failure rate in respect of such licences. The point of view of my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, is that, though we are most concerned about the increase in gross weights and the proposed axle loads, we would stress that the lorry driver is a skilled man.
I should like in conclusion to mention the points on which I feel this debate should concentrate. I feel that if we want to deal with these problems it is


no good going about it in a sloganising fashion by saying that the railway is the only answer, because that just will not do. Putting the traffic on the railways would only increase urban congestion, because we should have to get the traffic to the railhead and take it from the railhead. If we wish to put the traffic on the railways without increasing urban congestion, we must think in terms of increasing the amount of private siding space, which will probably mean even calling on the Government to give subsidies for the construction of private sidings.
Next, we must think seriously about building bypasses round such places as the constituency of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). This should have the utmost priority. We must do it before the regulations come in in 1980.
Apart from that, we must talk seriously about night delivery schemes. Perhaps the Secretary of State can say something about how these would be enforced. We must develop shop-service schemes on the lines of the Watford model.
More than that, we must think in terms of designated routes, not just advisory routes, and we must improve such routes as well.
The paramount need is to improve the standards of lorries themselves, to improve braking systems, cut down pollution levels, and improve their efficiency throughout.
The Secretary of State's Department should conduct its own inquiry into why the railways have lost so much traffic. It is not a matter of the share of freight going on the roads being 75 per cent. The railways' freight share at the moment is only 12 per cent. of the total freight in this country. The railways' share of freight receipts is only 5 per cent. In other words, 95 per cent. of the freight receipts are going to road haulage. The Secretary of State could make his biggest contribution to the debate if he announced that his Department would forthwith examine why some just cannot be put on the railways.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has endeared himself to me by either pointing at me or

referring to my constituency and emphasising in some way the need for a bypass round Canterbury. I am grateful for that, but I do not wish to spend much of my time on that question, because I agree with the hon. Member for Nun-eaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) when he says that probably the most immediate and urgent need is more quickly to produce the roads to carry our freight traffic, to carry our existing 22-tonners and 32-tonners.
We have a programme, and I acknowledge what Ministers and the Department have been doing under this Government in the last two-and-a-half years to accelerate it. But they must accelerate the programme still more. There must, I suggest, be papers from the Department on the subject on the Cabinet table showing which roads require further development or improvement, and specifying the places. This must be done as part of a crash programme, because in that way, I believe, we shall overcome a great deal of the difficulty which is making life an unbearable hell for so many of our constituents.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries agrees with that sentiment, but one must remember that, up to yesterday, he has been responsible only for the vehicles which go on our roads. He has declared, either here or outside the House, that he feels that the heavy vehicles about which we are complaining already should be directed to roads designated for them. But the fact remains that there are many areas on the approaches to our ports—the Canterbury-Dover route has been mentioned many times, and I shall not labour it—where the roads are utterly inadequate. Vehicles are travelling to and from our ports on roads simply not designed for such heavy—and important—traffic and trade.
There is great public anxiety. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) caught the attention of the House when he stressed the serious concern which people feel about this problem. As he said, people are so concerned that they will even consider breaking the law. They are already doing it in my constituency. A protest group called the A2 Protest Group has recently been sitting down on the A2, barring all traffic from Dover to Canterbury and on to


London. They have done it against the law and have been investigated by the police because of it. They did it on Trafalgar Day. I turned a blind eye to what they were doing, and I took part in the meeting afterwards. This is not violent protest, but it is a necessary protest to register in the country and in this place as well that there is great public concern that something should be done. People generally—I do not mean only my constituents—are determined to get Government action on this matter.
As a great lover of our Westminster Parliament, I believe that it is still possible to get Government action through Parliament via the Member of Parliament. As a European, I also believe that we must make it possible for Parliament, the Member of Parliament and certainly the Government to get action in Brussels on a matter which so affects the lives of our people. We must protect the British environment notwithstanding our acceptance of the European idea.

Mr. Marten: How can my hon. Friend say what he has just said when he voted for Clause 2 and consistently voted for the European Communities Act? It does not make sense to say that.

Mr. Crouch: I refuse to be drawn into an argument now, because we have debated this matter at such length. I am prepared to declare my adherence to and belief in the European idea, my belief in the future of this country united with the European Communities and my belief in the institutions of the EEC which we as a Parliament, people and Government must strengthen so that they properly represent the views of each nation, and certainly of this nation.
If the 40-ton lorry were permitted, it would be an unacceptable standard of vehicle weight in this country. Of course there is the economic plea for this vehicle from the road transport industry. I have listened with interest to the plea which was made, and it is right that it should have been made. The road transport industry is concerned at the impact which the 40-ton lorry would make on the environment. However, it is for this place to limit that impact and to legislate for it, not to leave it to the good will and good intention of the road haulage contracting industry.
The 40-ton lorry will mean not only heavier vehicles on our roads, breaking them up as we have heard, damaging our bridges, shaking our old and historic buildings and keeping us awake at night, but much bigger engines, which will mean higher speeds, greater difficulty for other motorists in overtaking such lorries, and greater danger of those lorries being unable to stop in a safe distance.
Because of the need for bigger engines there will be greater pollution on our roads from black diesel smoke. I have not time tonight to go into exact detail of how, because of the requirement in brake horsepower combined with the new requirement in British standards to limit exhaust emissions from diesel engines, there will have to be a considerable up-rating of engines to pull the heavier lorries. This will mean a considerable increase in the black diesel smoke which we find so insufferable today.
If we were forced to adopt the 40-ton lorry—there may be an ulterior motive from the other side of the Channel—there is no British diesel engine available to pull such a juggernaut.

Sir R. Cary: Gardeners have one.

Mr. Crouch: I checked this morning with the diesel engineer at the research department and I understand that neither British Leyland nor Gardeners has a vehicle engine of sufficient brake horsepower to pull a 40-ton lorry. Therefore, we shall be forced to turn to America for such an engine.

Mr. Simeons: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the ingenuity of British engine manufacturers is such that they cannot produce such an engine?

Mr. Crouch: Given time it is possible for the engineering and motor car industries to produce the necessary engine, but it will take eight to 10 years. In the meantime we may find the road haulage industry looking to Germany or to America.
This is not a question of jeopardising our competitive position among the European countries on the question of the vehicles that we use and the engines we buy. This is a European environmental problem, and there is no reason why this


country and this House should not give a lead to Brussels in the matter.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The Motion says that the House
is against bigger and heavier lorries".
Many of my constituents are against the big and heavy lorries that already exist. Representing, as I do, one of the major ports of this country, I see the problem every day, and I receive masses of complaints about it from my constituents.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) implied that the argument was about whether we had heavier lorries or more lorries. I suggest that in the long term that is not the argument. What we should be debating is the method by which freight is to be moved in future—by road, by rail or by some other form of transport.

Mr. Simeons: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to get goods from the railhead to factories without using lorries?

Mr. Mitchell: I realise that short-distance hauls from the railhead to factories will have to be by road. What I am saying is that far more long-haul traffic should go by rail. That is why I found the Minister's speech so staggering. A study of HANSARD tomorrow will show that not once in his speech did he use the word "railways". The right hon. Gentleman knows that even as we are debating this issue—the point was made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude)—British Railways are closing their freight service to Southampton Docks and forcing all that freight on the roads. When I write to the Minister about this I receive the usual reply that this is a matter for the commercial judgment of British Railways.
What I want the Department to do—it seems that the environment side of the Department does not talk very much to the transport industries' side—is to compare the loss that British Railways are making—and some of us think that it could be reduced anyway—with the extra environmental and social costs of putting that freight on the roads. My guess is that if the Minister were to carry out that survey in Southampton he would find that the cost of putting this traffic on the roads is far greater than the loss being

made by British Railways on that part of the track. I am sure that a strong case could be made for subsidising rail freight in order to avoid a loss.
We should be discussing future transport policy in this country. We should be considering where heavy goods traffic will go. In my opinion the future requires that much more should go by rail. If that were to happen it would relieve the pressure on our roads.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: Enough has been said about heavy lorries, and I do not wish to pursue that matter. None of us, with one, or possibly one-and-a-half, honourable exceptions, wants the size of these lorries increased. I want to refer to the constitutional issue arising out of the Government's decision to accept the Motion.
Tonight, this Parliament is sovereign, and Government, Opposition and Parliament together are saying that we will not have these lorries. Parliament is instructing Ministers in the Department of the Environment to agree with what Parliament has said. When they go forward to Brussels, at whatever level the meeting, they and their officials will have no power to go further than what we have said tonight.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) rightly quoted what my right hon. and learned Friend said, when Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on Second Reading of the European Communities Bill:
No Government would proceed in a matter of major policy in the Council unless they knew that they had the approval of the House.
Tonight, the Government are being told that they do not have the approval of the House to agree to any further extension in the size or weight of lorries.
In an intervention, I quoted a further undertaking by my right hon. and learned Friend:
… assuming that a question arose on which there had been strong feelings in this House, prima facie it would be a matter in the national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 274, 277.]
Of course, strong feelings have been expressed, and, therefore it makes this a matter "in the national interest".
If the Minister for Transport Industries would do me the honour of listening to this, he would see that it will affect him when he goes to the meeting on 18th December. He is being told by the House of Commons that this is a matter in the national interest and that British Ministers will have the power to insist that it is such a matter in the Council of Ministers. That power is permissive; we want an assurance tonight that the Minister or any of his colleagues will insist that this is a matter of major national importance requiring a unanimous decision and that we will not be part of that unanimous decision.
It was on that undertaking by the Secretary of State on which the vote on the Second Reading was taken—a very clear undertaking on the use of the veto, or, more accurately, the unanimous decision procedure.
I am not sure that the Government realised what they were doing, but by accepting this Motion they have given an honourable pledge that this is a matter of national importance and that they will not be part of the unanimous decision. I hope that the two Ministers now on the Front Bench have taken that point.
When I asked the Minister for Transport Industries the other day whether this would be treated by the Government as a matter in the national interest, requiring unanimous decision, I was surprised that he should reply:
At present this is a matter for the Council of Ministers of the Six but in the consultations which are taking place. I have emphasised the importance that the Government attach to an agreed solution which will take full account of our views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 300.]
If my right hon. Friend were standing here and I was sitting down there, I can just hear him criticising that answer, or non-answer. He would look over his "Sir Alec Douglas-Home" spectacles, and, in that well-known vinegary voice that he reserves for Ministers who have not answered questions, he would wade into me.
But I do not worry about that any more, because we now have the admission, by the very fact that the Government have accepted this Motion, that they will block it when it comes to the

next meeting in January, when we shall be a member of that Council of Ministers. If it happens on 18th December that the Community passes a regulation which will be directly applicable as the law of this country on 1st January, then I would say to all those who voted for the European Communities Bill that it is they—perhaps in their ignorance; I would be generous about that—who will be responsible for heavier lorries coming into this country, because they accepted that a regulation of the Community automatically becomes part of our law when we join. So they will carry the responsibility, those who voted for it—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On both sides of the House.

Mr. Marten: —on both sides of the House. Then I hope the country will recognise who it has to blame when these lorries comes thundering through Britain.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I underline the point made so powerfully by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that this will be the first of many issues arising from EEC regulations that we shall have to face. Hon. Members from both sides of the House will be making the constituency case and deploring what is happening, but they have voted for this and will have to stand and be counted.
This issue of lorries goes exceedingly deep. It concerns not just the countryside of Kent or the rural areas. The Manchester Docks are situated in my constituency, where there are thousands of terraced houses past which lorries bang day by day and night after night into one of our main ports in the middle of an urban area. My constituents find that these lorries are already far too big and that it is unbelievable that a Government could allow an increase of the measure proposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nun-eaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that it was only 2 per cent. and that the axle weight equates with the length and size of the vehicle. To my eyes these vehicles keep getting bigger. If it is only 2 per cent. and it does not matter, why is the pressure on at present to increase the size of these lorries and introduce these Continental juggernauts?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They are already breaking the law.

Mr. Orme: When it comes to the cost of our roads, we say that only another £200 million will make the roads satisfactory and that we can build bypasses. Although we want more motorways, over the last 10 or 12 years we have spent too much of our national resources on motorways. The Minister did not face that issue. I believe that he is anti-railway in his outlook. He never mentioned the railways and the possibility of transferring much of this weight from the roads to the railways in a properly integrated transport system.
One of the countries pressing this motion in the Six is France, which is destroying some of her major cities by sacrificing them to the car and the lorry. The Sunday Times produced an excellent article in its supplement last Sunday dealing with what is happening at present in Paris. Apparently not only is it the House of Commons that is digging up the middle of London to make new car parks; the same thing is happening outside Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. But the French are also building roads along the Seine to take heavy lorries, and that is destroying the river's banks.
We are told that this is happening in the interests of economic development and savings on costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) said, however, one has to equate exactly what is the cost in terms of the environment, of wastage and the manner in which it affects people, and not just in terms of pure, economic costs of the movement of goods from A to B. Some assessment ought to be made of the present amount of traffic and whether it is all as essential as is sometimes claimed. We know of the great necessity for most of it, but often there is not enough planning, particularly in the development of industries and the planning of railways, which could remove much of the trouble.
In our country it would be absolutely criminal to extend what is already far in excess of the traffic it can take. To see this we do not have to go to villages or to crowded cities, such as that which I represent. We have only to stand outside the House of Commons and watch lorries crossing Westminster Bridge and

negotiating the roundabout outside the House to see the problems. I can see these lorries and I know the problems they create in our society.
The Minister must go back on 18th December and say that the British people will not have it. He must tell the Commission that it cannot take a decision in our name, because if it does the House of Commons will not implement the order when it comes forward. We still have the last say. It is a question of sovereignty, but our sovereignty has been eroded. We were told during the Common Market debates that the issue of sovereignty was an airy-fairy argument, but that has come home to roost in a big way.
The British people will not tolerate this and they will take steps, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said, to prevent it happening. We do not want to see it, but if it comes there will be a reaction in this country. Will the Minister say how many lorries are being turned back at the ports because they are overweight? If tonight we say that we will not accept such an increase in weight, our Ministers must insist in Brussels that Britain will not accept it. They will have an excellent case because the House of Commons will have spelled it out, and it is up to the Minister to say that we shall not carry it out.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Roger White: The opening speeches of the debate were overwhelmed by the excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). He expressed the tone and feeling of the House in the way in which he advanced his argument. The problem of the heavy vehicle is by no means a new one. It has been with us since the end of the last war and, like Topsey, it has grown. Much has been said about Kent and in my part of that county between the Medway towns and Dartford we have seen the effects of heavy vehicles thundering through our villages and towns and upsetting our environment.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) referred to the TIR lorries now appearing on our motorways. We meet them on the A2, and with the greatest respect to the hon.


Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) I too can see the size of these vehicles and I believe that they are growing in size and in number. They are causing great concern and worry not only to those who live in and around my constituency but also to the local authorities and the police.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries gave a short list of the Government's achievements in matters such as off-street parking. Such measures are all to be welcomed because they are positive. But clearly the worry this evening is about the position in which we shall find ourselves on 18th December. No one doubts the feelings of the House and the Minister has already made clear on his visits to Brussels the way the Government feel on the subject. With another hon. Member, I visited Brussels three weeks ago and we made it abundantly clear to those gentlemen on the Commission who are responsible for transport about the way we felt on this issue.
I agree with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that the object of the debate is for a message to go from the House across the Channel to tell those in Europe that we certainly agree with the other three countries of the Six which now enjoy the same axle weight limits as we do. We believe also that our friends in Ireland and Denmark should be considered. Heaven knows why, after 10 years, this matter should be rushed through. That approach should be challenged with the utmost vigour. I wish my right hon. Friend every possible success in his mission on 18th December.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the past hour and a half we have had 14 back-bench speeches. I compliment those backbench speakers.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Hon. Members on both sides will wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) for having initiated this debate, and for the simple, clear motion he moved. It has led to a good debate, with many excellent short speeches. I hope that hon. Members will have noted that it is the intention of the Front Benches to follow their example. We have allowed ourselves only 10 minutes each, so hon. Members

will understand if we cannot deal with all the many points raised.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend meant the motion to be taken just as it reads in plain English. It does not deal with axle weights or this or that, but says that we are against bigger and heavier lorries.
While the debate is important for the content of the motion, it goes much wider. It is significant for three reasons: first, because it concerns our relations in Europe after we join the EEC on 1st January; secondly, because it underlines the need in all such transactions and policies to take account of social as well as economic costs; thirdly, because tonight the House is sending a message to the Government about the rôle of the House and the Executive.
I believe that all those propositions have the assent of the great majority of the people outside as well. We know that opinion on both sides of the House towards our entry varies between euphoric enthusiasm and total abhorrence.

Mr. Marten: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mulley: But the issue we are debating is not essentially or mainly about our attitude towards Britain's admission to the EEC. My right hon. Friend made that very clear. In my experience, many Members who are among the most enthusiastic supporters of cur entry are the most critical of the damage that heavy lorries do to the environment.
It may be a matter of regret to the Government that the issue should have arisen now, on the eve of our entry, but it is probably a good thing, because it provides a test of how they intend to conduct themselves within the Community. We must make it clear from the beginning that we as well as the other members can look after our vital national interests. If we do not—I say this as one who has been on record for over 20 years as believing in Europe—we shall be the only one of the nine Governments around the Common Market table so to behave. Therefore, there is a clear message here about Europe.
Secondly, there is a very clear message to the Government about the importance of the environment, of social costs and


the rest, and the willingness of the public at large to pay to preserve the things they hold dear.
The economic arguments were set out fairly in the Financial Times yesterday by Colin Jones. Those arguments, not only for the industry but indirectly for us all as consumers, obviously point to larger and larger lorries. But I thought Mr. Jones stretched a point, and I am sure he would have difficulty in persuading people of it, in saying that there was also an environmental argument, in that one large lorry could carry the load of two small lorries. I do not think that he would carry conviction in the House tonight.
However, there is an economic case for larger lorries. When I was Minister of Transport and the industry made its proposals for larger lorries, the argument was that it would be much better if the lorries could carry two 20-ton containers instead of one with a large amount of wasted capacity. But nobody ever explained to me why those concerned with the shipping trade had decided, without, as far as I can gather, any consultation, to standardise 20 tons for a container and so, willy-nilly, the whole of the environment and the whole of the vehicle policy had to be changed to fit.
If it is the case—I hope it is not—that the compromise reported in the Financial Times of 8th November is true and that the Minister is flexible about the proposal for 40 tons, that still will not permit such lorries to carry two 20-ton containers, because there is the weight of the vehicle as well.
It is necessary for us to understand that we probably will have to pay. But the British people are willing to do so to keep the sizes of lorries—that is, the gross weight, the axle weight and the dimensions—at their present level and not beyond.
When I was Minister of Transport I was immensely impressed by the representations which I had from all quarters, particularly from that very responsible body, the RIBA, to which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr.

Maude) referred in an extremely eloquent and forceful speech. Consequently, I caused a full examination to be initiated. I was not in office when the reports came back, but I like to think that they had some part in persuading the Minister for Transport Industries to take what everybody conceded at the time was the right decision on that recommendation.
However, it is not sufficient, although we are sure that the Minister is trying to keep down the size of lorries, to try to get special rates and so on. He must also, as hon. Members said, consider the rôle of the railways.
In looking back, it was a mistake that we made no provision in the Transport Act, 1968 for subsidies to be paid for freight. I think that it is a scandal, for example, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) has raised many times, that we are closing down railway services to ports. Europe would regard as chickenfeed the support which we give to our railways compared with the massive support which the Germans give to their railways.
The Minister should look again at quantity licensing, which is still the law of the land. He could introduce it tomorrow by making an order to do so. If it is thought that for administrative reasons it is not a good scheme, let him or somebdy else come up with another one. I accept that it would make only a marginal difference to the total traffic on the roads, although it would make a difference to our social and environmental policies. But we should not get any traffic back on the railways unless something is done. I hope that the Government will do something positive about the railways and not something on the lines of the leak which appeared in the Sunday Times.
The Motion contains plain English words, and it will not be enough—I accept that the Minister is advising the House out of conviction to accept the Motion, and I hope that that goes for the rest of the Government and that it is not a matter of expediency—to say that all these matters will be kept in mind. We are giving a clear message to the Government, and they will be judged by their achievement and not by their words. They will ignore this message at their peril.

9.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for the way in which he wound up the debate for the Opposition. Like the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), he has put the matter fairly in saying that this is not an issue which divides those who are pro- or anti-European or pro- or anti-Common Market. The debate has shown that there is very deep feeling on this matter on both sides of the House, and I have no doubt that that will be duly noted in the proper quarter. It has been a valuable and—I agree again with the right hon. Gentleman—a helpful debate which reinforces the views which the Government have repeatedly expressed about the need to preserve, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby said, a balance of economic and environmental factors on this issue.
In a reasonable speech—he is always reasonable—the right hon. Member for Grimsby expressed his view that on this issue the balance was perhaps tipping against protection of the environment. I entirely agree with him. But I take issue with his suggestion that the question of axle weights is a new factor in the situation. We discussed this and many other matters when the European Communities Act was before the House and on 28th June my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries said:
On dimensions and weights, the Council reached the point of wanting a 40-ton maximum overall weight and an 11-ton maximum axle loading. The discernible difference between a vehicle of an overall weight of 32 tons, as we have at the moment, and 40 tons is very small. What is important is the axle loading. The French have had the high figure of 13 tons for axle loading, as have some other European countries, whereas we have had 10 tons. The Community orientation has come down to 11 tons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1480.]
One must recognise that there has been a process of consultation about these things for a very long time. But not everyone appreciates that the proposals which are now being considered involve already a general agreement about a reduction of axle weights and gross weights in the case of many countries. The right hon. Member for Grimsby said that no one was really affected but ourselves. I do not think that is really true.

We all have an interest in the harmonisation of international practices in these matters—harmonisation by the target date of 1980—which will benefit not only the manufacturers but the users, including lorry drivers and public alike. There has to be, as the debate has shown, proper consultation—and the Community thinks this also—on environmental damage on a wider front.
In the light of the decisions taken at the meeting of Heads of Government at the summit in Paris, it would be wrong if the Ministers of Transport in all the countries did not take note of what the Heads of Government have said on these matters. But there has been already in Europe a welcome movement towards harmonisation, for example, of noise limits. The noise limits on new lorries are now the same in the United Kingdom and in the Community. The Community's standards of smoke emission are similar to and largely based on ours. There are many considerations about safety standards. So I do not think that we can say that these are not matters that do not affect us all generally and that there would not be great advantage if we could get harmonisation.
Of course, we are right to insist that harmonisation should be on a proper basis. No one in this House needs persuading about the damage which the lorry out of its proper place does to the environment and thus to the quality of our everyday life. The Government fully accept that we cannot just go on as we are and that the price in terms of noise, fumes and congestion is quite unacceptable.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has explained on many occasions the measures that the Government are taking—to use the phrase which is sometimes used nowadays—to "civilise" the lorry itself and restrict the roads on which it may travel. Here we have to take largely our own action. We have taken already a number of measures to which reference has been made in the debate.

Mr. John Morris: Are the Government more flexible with regard to gross weight as opposed to the question of axle weight?

Mr. Rippon: Gross weight is not as much at issue as axle weight. We want to


come up with the right answer to this complex problem. We allow lorries of much greater weight than this on our roads. They carry abnormal indivisible loads up to 150 tons. We have to be concerned about this and about where we let them go. We have to keep the matter in perspective. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said, we are talking about 2 per cent. of commercial traffic and these are technical matters on which it is not possible to be quite absolute. What we have to do is to return to the subject of what we do about these lorries whether under the European proposals or under our own existing laws, for the European proposals do not come into operation until 1980.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), I believe that the scale of our landscape and of our towns and villages is such that we cannot indefinitely allow these lorries, of whatever weight or size, to chunter through villages and along country roads. It is a matter of getting ahead with a road system on which these lorries can go. The important thing is that we should not discriminate—non-discrimination is the principle—so that neither our own nor foreign lorries are allowed to chunter through our towns and villages along roads totally unsuited to them.
The House will acknowledge that it was the present Government which first took any action to prevent foreign lorries of any weight whatever from coming into this country. As the House has heard, the French already have axle weights of 13 tons, which they are now willing to reduce, and negotiations about that are going on. We freely allowed them into this country until the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 put on some control.
I was asked how many lorries had been stopped and turned back. In the first two months in which the Act was in operation the figure was 90, but it is interesting to note that the number is falling off as the message gets home that we will not have in this country foreign lorries that do not comply with our regulations.
It is clear to all that something has to be done in Europe as a whole to bring this matter under sensible regulation, especially as we are now engaged in preparations for the European Agricultural Heritage Year—[Laughter.] I am sorry; I should have said European Architectural Heritage Year. I am glad that the House is in a merry mood on this occasion, for we have reached general agreement on the substance of the matter before us.
A number of hon. Members have suggested that there is Government hostility towards British Rail. That is not true. As the right hon. Member for Grimsby, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James White) and others have said, it is important to consider the need to co-ordinate road and rail. This is another aspect of the situation within our command. The House may have noted that in re-organising the duties of my Department I have asked my right hon. Friend to take responsibility not simply for the transport industries, including buses, but for transport policy generally, including roads and traffic management.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the Secretary of State settle this matter by giving a clear undertaking that, if necessary, the British representative will use his veto in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) accurately quoted the position, as he accurately quoted what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries said and how between us we set out the position, the position after 1st January, 1973 and the interim position until then. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the veto?"] What is wrong is to try in negotiations of this kind to lay down in advance answers to hypothetical questions that arise only in the absence of the agreement that we expect to reach.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, mindful of the environment, is against bigger and heavier lorries.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID

10.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move,
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discuss the following two Motions at the same time:
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

The Attorney-General: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
In the first two regulations paragraph 2 deals with the situation where there is a refusal of legal aid in view of the upper limit of capital and paragraph 3 deals with a person's contribution and disregard. By the proviso to Section 2 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, amended by the Legal Aid Act 1960 a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than £500 or such larger figure as may be prescribed and it appears that he can afford to proceed without legal aid.
Under Section 3 (1) of the 1949 Act, as amended, a person's contribution to the legal aid fund in respect of any proceedings may include, and be a contribution in respect of, capital not greater than the amount, if any, by which his disposable capital exceeds £125 or such larger figure as may be prescribed.
These proposals increase the maximum capital limit from £500 to £1,200 and increase the free capital limit from £125 to £250. Under the 1960 Act the regulations for increasing these amounts of disposable capital have to be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The figure of £500 disposable capital has remained since 1949, and the figure of £125 disregard on disposable capital has remained since 1960. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee

which makes comments and recommendations in respect of legal aid reported in June 1972. I stress that this was an interim report as it is pending a thorough reappraisal of the whole of the capital and income limits now being undertaken by the Committee.
On the first of the two matters, the disposable capital limit, at present of £500, the Committee pointed out that to restore the limit to its original money value in 1949 the figure should be increased to £1,200. It went on to recommend that to allow for inflation the figure should be fixed at £1,500. The Government have decided that in the present circumstances, well known to the House, it would not be right to increase the limit beyond that warranted by the fall in the value of money since 1949; that is, to restore the value of £500 in 1949 to its current value, £1,200.
I emphasise that this upper limit is not an absolute bar to receiving legal aid. A person may receive legal aid if it appears that he cannot afford to proceed without it. If his maximum contribution is less than the estimated cost of the proceedings, legal aid can be granted, and that is the usual interpretation. Legal aid is usually granted if he has a capital limit of £1,200 and it is estimated that it will be an expensive action which will cost several thousand pounds. While his contribution may be £1,200, he will nevertheless be granted legal aid. Therefore, the limit is not of overwhelming importance.
The question of disposable income and capital is determined by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. There are disregards of furniture, clothing, trade equipment and tools, and of half the value of a person's house after deducting the value of any encubrances, plus £5,000, which the Assessment of Resources (Amendment) Regulations propose should be increased to £6,000. The first £150 on a life policy and any debts due to be repaid in a period of 12 months are also disregarded.
Moreover, the assisted person can keep from his disposable capital what has been described as the nest egg; namely, £125, which paragraph 3 of the Regulations suggests should be increased to £250. It was fixed at £125 in 1960. Translated


into the money terms of today, it would be £210. The advisory committee suggested £325, but the Government propose £250, which is an increase in real terms of £40, comparing 1972 with 1960. The advisory committee suggested £325 because it is the limit at which capital is ignored for assessing supplementary benefit. However, under the Legal Aid Scheme, unlike the Supplementary Benefits Scheme, allowances are made for dependants. It is proposed in the Assessment of Resources (Amendment) Regulations to increase the allowances. It is proposed to increase the allowance for a first dependant from £75 to £125, for a second dependant from £50 to £80, and for any further dependant from £25 to £40.
As a result of the proposals in the regulations, the amounts will be lower for a single person than the supplementary benefit amount but higher for a married person. They will be even higher for a person with one child, who will get about £130, and for a person with two children, who will get about £170. It has been suggested that this is a fairer and better balance, taking into account the needs particularly of married people and those with dependants and children.
The advisory committee is carrying out a thorough reappraisal and, therefore, these proposals are only temporary, but I believe that they represent important improvements in the Legal Aid Scheme.

Sir Elwyn Jones: What are the present figures for disposable income? That is the other vital factor. If that is a fast one to bowl now, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us the figures later, because they are the other half of the coin on which legal aid is based.

The Attorney-General: I do not have the figures now. I will obtain them and give them to the House. I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. The question of capital has been, to a certain extent, more worrying than any other.
The second statutory instrument deals with the question of the extension of proceedings. It is proposed to extend legal

aid to proceedings before a Commons Commissioner in England or Wales. Scotland is not troubled with this matter.
As I have told the House in answer to Questions, considerable study and research is being conducted by the Nuffield Foundation and other bodies into the question to which tribunals should be extended legal proceedings. There may be certain tribunals where those appearing would reap greater advantage by having a person other than a lawyer representing them. It is hoped that the advisory committee will consider that question next year having had the advantage of the research by the Nuffield Foundation and other bodies.
There are a number of important reasons why legal aid should be extended to proceedings before commons commissioners. It may seem improbable to select commons commissioners, but this is a clear case and an important one for a limited number of people. First, in proceedings before commons commissioners there is a real need for legal representation. The long task of registration has been completed and we have reached the stage when objections should be taken before the commissioner who will confirm, modify or reject.
This can be of vital importance, especially to upland farmers or small holders who rely on common grazing for upkeeping their livestock. Matters which come before commons commissioners and which are important to the smallholder and upland fanner are very recondite in law. For instance, is it common land? Was the land subject to rights of common or manorial waste? Ancient grants and manorial records may arise and need to be examined. Even the medieval principle of levancy and couchancy might have to be argued. Apparently the number of animals which a commoner may be allowed to graze on common land can be limited to the number he can support on his own land in winter.
All these are complicated matters, although they may appear to be somewhat improbable. They are important matters, as also are the questions of prescription, abandonment or mergers. It would be impossible for the smallholder or farmer to argue any of these matters satisfactorily before a commons commissioner.
Second, apart from these technical and difficult points of law, if legal aid is not given now it will be too late, because this is a once-for-all operation for commons commissioners. The operation will be completed in six years. It is estimated that this aspect of legal aid will cost only £20,000 spread over those six years and will apply to only a few people. Nevertheless, the persons affected are entitled to have these matters brought before the commons commissioners; and their general livelihood and smallholding will depend upon the decision arrived at.
It is important to have a legal aid, thirdly, because the decision of the commons commissioner is a final one with only a limited right of appeal to the High Court.
For these reasons, it is fair to extend this small amount of legal aid to the small number of people involved in these proceedings before the advisory committee has the advantage of the results of the Nuffield Foundation Research with respect to other matters.
To answer the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), the limit of disposable income is £950.
In general, 157,864 legal aid certificates are granted each year in England and Wales. Some 12,622 certificates were granted in Scotland, and the cost—

Mr. Greville Janner: In terms of the legal aid certificates granted, in how many cases has a contribution to be made by the individual to whom the grant is made?

The Attorney-General: I cannot say exactly how much the contribution would be. I should have thought that it would be a considerable amount out of the figure of 157,000 certificates.
The cost to the Exchequer is £12,145,000 in respect of England and Wales and £1,362,000 for Scotland. Of those sums civil claims account in England and Wales for £9,433,106 and in Scotland £883,357. These are substantial sums, and it is right to remind the House that the lawyers participating in the service carry out this work with a 10 per cent. deduction of costs taxed on a com-

mon fund basis. The figure used to be 15 per cent. and is now 10 per cent. That is the contribution of the legal profession to the legal aid service, and we should not forget that contribution.
These proposals afford limited but important changes and bring about improvements in the general scheme. I hope that the House will accept them.

10.17 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The Opposition welcome these regulations so far as they go, but in our view they do not go nearly far enough. Legal aid costs still represent only about one-thousandth part of the total of public expenditure. That seems to represent what the community is now prepared to spend directly to assist citizens to obtain access to a whole range of legal services. It covers the need to obtain compensation for personal injury—and we discuss this matter tonight in the shadow of our earlier discussions about thalidomide victims; it also covers dissolution of broken marriages and the cost of representation in serious criminal proceedings.
In terms of civil claims with which these regulations are directly concerned, the present situation is far from satisfactory. The position is highlighted in a remarkable report by the Legal Action Group, a report which I invite the Attorney-General to consider when the opportunity arises. The report was published in October of this year and is entitled "Legal Advice Centres: An Explosion." It points to the inadequacy of the present legal aid and advice arrangements which have resulted in the appearance of 61 part-time centres to fill the present void in available legal services. These centres have sprung up in the last year or two on the initiatives of solicitors, barristers, social workers and university law teachers working voluntarily in the centres, and they have sought to fill the gap.
The commentary upon them in this most valuable report is this:
The problems of running a centre on part-time voluntary lawyers' services are immense, and centres freely admit that their service is a mere patch tacked over some of the bigger holes in the tattered garment of the Legal Aid Scheme. Their major failings are: lack of a comprehensive service, and lack of continuity.


It gives me no satisfaction as a lawyer to draw these matters to the attention of the House, but it is against that background that the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts before us these somewhat inadequate proposals.
Although the illusion persists that legal aid is free, a man has to be very poor to obtain free legal aid or advice today. Under the regulations as now proposed, to qualify for free legal aid in order to undertake civil proceedings, which may be vital to him or his family, his disposable capital must not exceed £1,200 and he must have a disposable income not exceeding £950. The proceedings which he wishes to institute may relate to matters of great importance to him—divorce matters, serious accident cases, matters like the thalidomide cases, breaches of contract, matters affecting his conditions of employment or any other non-criminal matter, subject to certain exclusions such as that of libel.
The words "disposable capital" in the regulations refer to what a man is calculated to have left after certain deductions are made. I looked again tonight at some of the regulations governing the financial limits for legal aid. They have been described as of "hideous complexity", and that they certainly are; but the part of them which has given us on this side of the House great concern is the provision for deductions related to the value of the dwelling which the would-be litigant may possess.
Rule 9 in the second schedule to the governing rules provides:
Except as is provided in the next succeeding paragraph of this rule, in computing the amount of capital of the person concerned, there shall be disregarded, in respect of the value to him of any interest in the dwelling in which he resides, any sum which might be obtained by him by selling that interest or borrowing money on the security thereof
Then there follows this paragraph:
There shall be taken into account one half of the amount by which the value of the dwelling, after deducting therefrom the amount of any encumbrance charged thereon, exceeds £5,000.
I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that has been increased to £6,000.
With today's sky-rocketing of property values, when even a small and miserable house in a. poor area may command a

selling price of £7,000, £8,000 or even more, a serious problem is presented to, for example, elderly would-be claimants who may have paid off their mortgages but who may be excluded by reason of the regulations from obtaining legal aid because the net capital value of their dwelling-house is over £6,000.
What is to happen to them? No one would suggest that they ought to be turned out of their homes so that they may be enabled to fight what may well be a perfectly legitimate and desperately serious civil action. Therefore, I hope that in the review which is to take place—it is at least reassuring that these regulations are only interim measures—these elements of deductions governing what amounts to disposable capital will be basically re-examined.
Another factor which will not have escaped the attention of the House is that when legal aid falls to be considered when applications are made, the income of the spouse is added to that of the applicant, thus making the low scales that we are considering even more stringent.
We shall not vote against the regulations tonight as they offer some improvement. Nevertheless, we submit that the proposals in the regulations covering both England and Scotland are insufficient to cope with present needs. The first part, raising to £250 the amount of disposable capital which cannot be called upon for a contribution towards legal aid, is in our view far too low. It is interesting that the Supplementary Benefits Commission rightly disregards the first £325 of capital when assessing supplementary benefits.
I noted with interest today that back in April this year the New Law Journal suggested that the figure should be raised to" £500. That would indeed seem a modest figure. It is most disappointing and deplorable that the Government have decided not to recommend the somewhat higher figure suggested by the advisory committee.
For people with disposable capital above £1,200, no legal aid whatever is to be available. This will have the effect of leaving a large number of our citizens who may have perfectly good civil claims too rich, if that is the right word, to qualify but too poor to take the risk to go it alone in the courts.

The Attorney-General: I pointed out that even though the contribution limit may be up to £1,200, legal aid would not usually be refused if it was estimated that the action in which the applicant was involved was expensive and likely to cost several thousand pounds. Therefore, it is not a complete barrier.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It would have been interesting if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given us an indication of the number of cases in which that discretion had been exercised and what amounts had been involved. My information—it may be that my hon. Friends have more specific information—is that the discretion is not generously exercised. Indeed, it would be surprising if, bearing in mind the content of the regulations, the discretion were exercised with generosity. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can reassure us with statistical figures of the percentage of cases in which discretion has been exercised, that will certainly to some extent qualify my concern about the effect the regulations will have. However, I fear that they will show that the discretion does not amount to a great deal.
Therefore, despite the modest improvement effected by the regulations, I submit that it is only if a man is extremely poor or rich that he will be able to afford a civil action. There will be one law for the rich and the very poor, but injustice or potential injustice for the man in the middle. That is why we confess to our disappointment at these figures.
As Members of Parliament conducting our weekly or fortnightly "surgeries" we all know of many instances of the grave anxieties that our constituents face. In one case of mine a woman working in a hospital fell on a wet floor. She and her husband were at work. There is advice that they may have a good cause of action, but they do not qualify for legal aid, and the risk of going ahead and the consequent disaster in the event of losing the action and having an order for costs made against them creates a situation in which it is thought more prudent not to assert the claim. That is the kind of case with which we are all familiar and which, as a lawyer, it gives me no satisfaction to recount.
I beg the Government to look again at these figures and encourage a review in

the very near future. I trust that the next time an advisory committee reports the Government will, at the least, give effect to its recommendations and will not cheesepare on them in the miserable way they have done in relation to the figures in these regulations tonight.
These regulations also apply to Scotland, and I am comforted to think that sitting eagerly behind me seeking to catch the eye of the Chair is the Shadow Lord Advocate, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), who will no doubt have something to say about the Scottish provisions, and it will surprise me if he disagrees with the criticisms I have made of the regulations as they apply to England.
I was intrigued by the special selection for inclusion for legal aid, proceedings before the commons commissioner but, having heard of the intricacies of levancy and couchancy, which is a daily topic of conversation in West Ham, I am not entirely surprised that legal aid is deemed to be necessary to deal with these recondite matters which the Attorney-General trips off his tongue with that expert knowledge of these matters which we know he possesses.
However, it is a strange selection bearing in mind the far more deserving cases before other tribunals. I have in mind in particular the whole realm of welfare benefit tribunals where decisions vitally affecting the interests and financial position of a large number of our fellow citizens are taken and before which they must go unassisted.
Our verdict is that these regulations should have been far better, but we have to take them for what they are worth. Accordingly, we shall not oppose them tonight but we declare our grave disappointment that they are far below what the advisory committee recommend and far below the needs of the current situation.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I share the welcome which the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has given to the increase in the limits for legal aid, and I do so without a number of the reservations which the right hon. and learned


Gentleman put forward. It is always possible when public funds are made available in the interests of social welfare to say that an increase or the availability is not enough. That, however, is a matter that has to be considered in the light also of the requirements of the public purse and I think it is pertinent to remember when we are considering the legal aid system and the moneys that are made available for it that this is a matter in which this country leads the world. Certainly in most Continental countries people are amazed at the extent to which, out of public funds and through the good will and resources of the legal profession, we help the litigant.
We also aid foreigners who bring deserving cases here. It is with some pride that I recall some years ago myself representing an impecunious French citizen who was suing an Englishman in our courts—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] I am astonished that the word "Shame" should be uttered in this connection. This is something of which we should be proud. The whole costs were in the end recovered from the Englishman, who had mown the man down in his car and had for many years evaded service. Justice was done in the end, and it is something of which we should be proud.
I should like to say a work of appreciation for the work done by legal aid committees in the granting of legal aid certificates. I served for many years on an area committee and I am in great admiration of the voluntary work done by solicitors and barristers, who are often instrumental in seeing that the upper limit does not prevail where it is plain that the costs would exceed it.
There are no doubt defects in our system. It does not cover many deserving cases whose need is often looked after by voluntary bodies. I am not at all sure that public money could not be made available with great advantage to help voluntary organisations like Cambridge House, the Mary Ward Settlement and the other legal advice bodies. I see you looking a little impatient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and perhaps I am going outside the rules of order. Perhaps you would just permit me to add that public money

made available in this way would be a very important prop to our system of legal aid and voluntary help.
I welcome the financial improvements in the legal aid system which the regulations bring about.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I would echo the guarded welcome to the regulations which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) gave on behalf of the Opposition. The only thing which can be put on the credit side is that these proposals are interim only. I hope that means that we shall have firm proposals breaking new ground in the near future.
I do not want to embarrass the Attorney-General if he does not have the figures at his fingertips now, but the House would be interested to know the increase in expenditure that will result from the three sets of regulations. I am naturally more interested in the expenditure for Scotland, but the House would, I am sure, be interested in figures in all three cases. It is possible to make a guess, based on the figure for total expenditure which the Attorney-General gave. It is obvious that if these regulations are making up for the loss of value resulting from inflation, one can guess fairly accurately the sort of expenditure involved.
I echo what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I hope that funds at least as great will be set aside by the Government for the support of legal aid centres and their establishment where they do not exist at present.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We have just listened to four excellent speeches from four hon. and learned Gentlemen, all of whom have an interest and do not have to declare it. I declare that I have no interest except that one day, God forbid, I may have to ask for assistance under the scheme.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said that West Ham would not be affected by the third set of regulations. However, he forgets Epping Forest and Wanstead Flats, which may well be


covered when we have the travelling cattle which have created many problems. Who knows whether the regulations may be of assistance concerning them?

Sir Elwyn Jones: On the contrary, I said that West Ham talked about nothing but levancy and couchancy.

Mr. Lewis: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct.
I am interested in how the scheme works and how the proposed increases will operate. I cite one of hundreds of cases. A policeman known to have a good record had a son, who had never been in trouble previously, who was charged with an offence concerning fireworks. He was found innocent. The policeman could get no legal aid. He was landed with costs of about £300, which he could ill afford. Not so long ago, however, a man named Sewell murdered a policeman and was convicted. He is now in prison. He claimed and got free legal aid, but it is alleged in the Press—it has not yet been denied—that he has £20,000, £50,000 or £150,000 in ill-gotten gains.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I hope the hon. Member will bear in mind that this is a very limited debate. It concerns only the increases which are mentioned in the regulations.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am explaining that at present the man I have mentioned cannot get legal aid although he has a clear record.
The Attorney-General explained about disregards, capital assets and income. I was about to explain that a man known to have £150,000—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The regulations have nothing to do with criminal cases.

Mr. Lewis: I tried, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the Attorney-General when he mentioned special cases and total costs. I was about to ask how it was hat one man got legal aid while another, man, completely innocent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Can the hon. Member explain to the Chair how this is in order?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the first set of regulations increases the amount of legal aid if a man has a disposable income or capital of more than £1,200.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But not in criminal cases.

Mr. Lewis: I quoted a particular criminal case to illustrate what was happening at present. I was explaining that people with criminal records and large sums of money can get free legal aid for non-criminal cases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude. I hope he will now come within the bounds of order.

Mr. Lewis: Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am only emphasising the point made by the Attorney-General. The regulations state that:
a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than £1,200.
Why is it that accused persons with disposable assets well in excess of £1,200 receive legal aid when more deserving cases do not get it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the regulations. Their whole point is whether the amounts should be increased and, if so, by how much. That is what hon. Members may discuss.

Mr. Lewis: Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can take up points made by the Attorney-General. He referred to the increased cost. He explained that total costs were about £12 million, that about £9 million was attributable to civil cases in England and Wales and that about £2 million was attributable to Scotland. What has happened to the odd £1 million? Is it needed to meet the additional costs of the scheme consequent upon the Attorney-General's proposal to extend the limit to £1,200 in disposable assets?
I am not prepared to agree to the regulations to increase that limit to £1,200 because I do not believe that the scheme is being operated properly. It would be wrong to increase the limit because that would increase also the burden on the taxpayer. If the Attorney-General wants to increase the limit to


£1,200, he must assure me that the scheme is being operated properly. I do not believe that people with disposable assets in excess of £1,200—or £1,200,000 for that matter—are prevented from benefiting from the scheme.
When I seek to question the right hon. and learned Gentleman about this he does not give the answers, and when I write to him he refuses to take action. Now, after many months, he is unable to tell me how much legal aid has been granted. Has he considered reducing the expenses of running the scheme? Has he considered reducing the amount lawyers get from refresher briefs? Do they get refresher briefs? Are we sure that there is not too much wasted time in the courts?
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the thalidomide case. It has been going on for 10 years. The others present in the Chamber are all lawyers, with one honourable exception, and they and I know that the longer a case takes, the more money the lawyers get. It would be regarded as very strange if my dockers claimed a £500-a-day refresher for each day they held up the loading or unloading of a ship. It might be a good thing to cut down the length of time which so many cases take. I suggest that it might be done by cutting instead of increasing the lawyers fees the longer a case goes on. That would be an incentive to the lawyers to get on with the job. The legal fraternity can act with great speed when it wants to and can be equally slow when it wants to be slow. The case of the AEUW and the National Industrial Relations Court was settled overnight, but I am still waiting for the details of costs after 12 months in other cases.
Will the extra money involved in these regulations enable people to claim legal aid in road offence cases such as speeding? People are known to get away with being pulled up two or three times for speeding without being taken to court. But most of my constituents cannot afford lawyers when they are pulled up and cautioned for motoring offences. I hope they will be within the new limit and will be able to get assistance.
I hope that the Attorney-General will consider the case of an innocent person who is compelled to defend himself in court but will still be below the new limits in the regulations and will not get

legal aid. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is an interim measure and that another will come later. He should ask his advisory committee to examine the possibility of the innocent person claiming and getting his costs so that he is treated as fairly as some of the big company directors who deliberately pass over their assets to their wives or other relatives and go bankrupt in order to be able to take advantage of legal aid. One can read of such cases in the Press almost any day. I hope that the Attorney-General will tighten up and prevent abuse of the scheme in this way by these wealthy sharks who are phoney company directors.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I sometimes wonder, when listening to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). whether, if the House were well stocked with doctors, he would accuse them of having vested interest every time they voted in favour of improving the National Health Service. Some of us believe that the importance of justice in this country is crucial—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: So do I.

Mr. Janner: —and that the importance of legal aid is to ensure that justice is available to all, irrespective of their wealth.
The most important point made in the debate so far was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), who said that at the moment justice is available for the rich and for the poor but not for the man in the middle. The object of all improvements in the legal aid scheme should be to make justice available where it is not available. To the extent that the improvement in the regulations does that, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North will approve of them.
We all recognise the defects in the legal aid scheme. The most essential is that the bulk of ordinary working people earning a decent living are unable to obtain free legal aid. In many cases they are unable to obtain legal aid at all. They may have a perfectly good case, but if they are faced with a rich company they cannot afford to fight it. If they are faced with a legally-aided plaintiff, again


they will be unable to defend themselves. That may be equally serious.
The injustice moves in both directions and it is to conquer that injustice that all improvements such as those proposed this evening should be directed. The test of the improvement is whether it is sufficient and whether it goes far enough in the right direction.
We are concerned with two statutory instruments. The first is financial, and the second deals with individual tribunals. The second does not even meet the criterion set up by the advisory committee, which is to provide advice which I presume is meant to be followed. There is little point in having someone to offer advice if it is intended to flout that advice. That is what the Government have seen fit to do. They say, "We all know the current position". That is not good enough, because as a result of the advance we are moving back to where we were in 1949. That is hardly a tribute to the efforts being made to provide justice for the people in the middle. We want to move forward so that the people can get justice which is not available at present.
The increase is parsimonious and mean. I hope that "interim" means that there will be a further advance very shortly. Perhaps the Attorney-General will be good enough to define "interim" so that we know what he has in mind. There can be an interim order which lasts for one day, one which lasts a week and one which lasts the life of the Government which may be rather longer than we hope. However, if the Attorney-General defines "interim" we might sleep a little better.
The other matter concerns me even more. We have advanced into another tribunal, but the advance is so petty and so limited as to be scarcely worth making. My constituents do not have the infinite advantages of the people who live in West Ham. For a start, they are not represented by the hon. Member for West Ham, North. They have no Epping Forest, although they do have Abbey Park, where Wolsey died. But that is about it. There is no common land that I know of, and my constituents will gain no advantage from the order.
However, there are two main areas where I regret most deeply that the advance has not been made. The commons commissioner is almost unheard of

anywhere outside West Ham. The national insurance commissioner, on the other hand, is a man of crucial importance, particularly on a day when the House has been considering the thalidomide children.
I appeared before the Chief National Insurance Commissioner on 17th October on behalf of a little boy called Jimmy Martin who has no legs and only one arm. Such cases normally take a short time, but the commissioner informed us that it was the first occasion where there had been an argued case on the correct meaning of the law as set out in the regulations. By definition, the people who need legal aid most are those who can least afford to pay for lawyers. By definition, the person who has to ask for an order to receive £4.60 or so a week cannot afford to engage counsel and cannot afford a solicitor either, so he appears with neither before a commissioner who is of infinitely greater importance than the commons commissioner.
The Jimmy Martin case ran for a day instead of a few minutes or a few hours. Instead of judgment being given on 17th October, it was reserved, and today the decision has still not been given.
Second, of all the tribunals to choose from, why pick the commons commissioner, when we know that in the tribunals set up to administer the compensation for unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act there is no legal aid and people must appear without help? To give preference to these regulations is ludicrous.
We shall willingly vote the commons commissioner into the legal aid field tonight, for the benefit of those who wish to take advantage of that tribunal. But it is ridiculous to leave out of account the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who need representation of the most humble kind before the industrial tribunals. Just a few weeks ago the Government admitted that some 73 per cent. of all cases to reach an industrial tribunal for compensation for unfair dismissal fail. In other words, the employers, who can afford to be represented by lawyers, win, and the employees, who receive no legal aid when they appear before tribunals infinitely more important than the commons commissioner, fail. It is a very unfair order of precedence that the Government have set.
Three reasons were given by the Attorney-General. The first was the speed of final decision, the fact that a matter will be finished shortly, and that unless legal aid is granted soon it will be too late. That argument applies equally well to Jimmy Martin's family. They can only make their application now. If they wait too long the boy will be grown up, like the people waiting for council houses who die before they get them.
The second reason was that there was a very limited right of appeal. The right of appeal from the national insurance commissioner, so far as I know, does not exist, so there is even greater need there.
The third reason is that it is a limited field. So are those in great need.
We can apply to the areas of real need precisely the same criteria as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has applied to this recondite, strange area of both legal and physical country, the commons.
I hope that the Government will direct their attention to the areas of real human need where legal aid may be as essential as a doctor is to a sick person, and that they will do so very soon.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: We must welcome any increase in the legal aid limits. If we took the more reserved attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and successfully opposed the regulations, even fewer of the dockers of West Ham would be able to bring legal actions when, for example, they suffered personal injury on the roads.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend will understand that I was not opposing the regulations, but it would appear that I had to oppose them in order to get in order.

Mr. Lyons: The regulations are helpful, and we are grateful to the Government for producing the increases. The real question is whether the increases are great enough. Anyone dealing with individuals bringing or resisting actions without benefit of legal aid knows that discussion of costs plays a large part in deciding whether to continue proceedings or to accept an offered settlement.
Often, results occur which are not just but are the result of lack of funds of

the person bringing or resisting the proceedings. It will still be the case, after this new measure becomes law, that people who could not be regarded as rich by any stretch of the imagination will not be able to obtain legal aid.
I was recently attending a trial in South-West Africa on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists. I know that that was a criminal trial and that these orders do not relate to criminal proceedings, but in South and South-West Africa legal aid procedure in civil and criminal proceedings is rudimentary. The result is that people who have been injured and make a civil claim and those who resist criminal proceedings have great difficulty unless some outside source is prepared to put up funds for defence or for prosecuting a civil claim.
In Britain it is right to say, as the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said, that we can take pride in the legal aid scheme because it goes further than the schemes in other countries, while there are countries with no schemes at all.
One does not want it to be said, as an hon. Member opposite said outside in circumstances attended by great publicity, that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor and that one can buy justice. That was a remark which, in respect of criminal proceedings, was totally false, totally untrue.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is true.

Mr. Lyons: In the civil field, curiously enough, there is one law for the rich and poor—both can defend and bring civil actions—while it is the man in middle area who is discriminated against. The orders go only a small part of the way to secure that gap in the law and end that injustice.
One would like to know what estimate is being made of the numbers of extra people who will be brought within the legal aid net by the increases proposed. I have pleaded that one reason why we have not heard a suggested estimate is that the numbers will perhaps not be too great.
I should like to say a final word on the esoteric subject of the commons commissioner, about whom I am entirely ignorant. I always thought that couchancy was something to do with


medieval tournaments and the insignia carried on medieval shields, but it is something appropriate for every citizen of West Ham to discuss, if it is discussed nowhere else.
I echo the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) when he referred to other tribunals to which the Government are not proposing to extend legal aid.
One feels that the commons commission has been chosen simply because there are few cases, even in West Ham, for that august body and that it will not cost a great deal of money to provide legal aid for it, whereas, in relation to cases of unfair dismissal, and in relation to cases before the national insurance commissioner, to introduce legal aid, necessary and advisable as it may be, will cost the country a more notable sum of money. It seems, therefore, that the Government are less reluctant to introduce it in the other case. One can only hope that those who have lost their jobs wrongfully, or allegedly wrongfully, will have an opportunity to get proper advice and secure a remedy for any wrong done.
Subject to those comments, I welcome the regulations.

11.10 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I suppose it will be said that I am biased, but the speech which I enjoyed most was that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). Not only did he unreservedly welcome the regulations, but he spoke sense, and reminded us that this is a service of which we are entitled to be proud. Those who first introduced it, members of the party to which the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) belongs, can take pride in having done so. We have extended the scheme thereafter. I do not imagine that we would ever do without it now, and we all want to improve it and ensure that it is as fair as it is possible to make it.
But the public purse has to be considered. Hard is the path of Government and Ministers when they put to the House of Commons, admittedly modest, suggestions for improvement at a time when an advisory committee is conducting a study in depth which may take a little time, only to encounter the objec-

tion that what we propose is mean and miserable. We have listened to what the advisory committee has had to say. It will deal with the whole matter of disposable capital and income, and I hope that before many months are past I shall be back here with something more, though, no doubt, it will again be said "But this is mean and miserable." It is the duty of an Opposition to take that attitude, I suppose, so that whatever proposal I make will be greeted with the same response.
We have taken what the advisory committee said with regard to disposable capital, that £1,200 would put it back to the 1949 position. In that respect an injustice will be corrected. I must say that, if injustice it be, it has been going on since 1949, and others would have been responsible only a few years ago. As regards disposable income, the figure we have taken will, we believe, give a fairer and more balanced position at this time of inflation when restraints are being imposed upon people and the report of the committee is being prepared.
The advisory committee reported that it had carefully considered the cost of the civil legal aid and advice scheme and was
satisfied that it is administered economically and that continued care is exercised to avoid waste of public funds".
As well as the work done by practitioners, there is the service performed by those who serve on the legal aid committees in the important task of making assessments and judgments for the granting of legal aid certificates. This also is important work, and they should be congratulated on it.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) asked for the estimates. I can only tell him that the estimate of cost for the financial conditions regulations would be in the neighbourhood of £200,000 in England and Wales and about £20,000 in Scotland. In the case of the commons commissioners, it would be £20,000 over six years.
May I correct something which I said earlier? I said that 12,622 certificates had been issued in Scotland. In fact, that was the number of applications; 8,821 certificates were issued.
There is provision for legal aid centres to be set up under Part II of the Legal


Advice and Assistance Act 1972. The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South has put before us the views and opinions of the Legal Action Group, which I will study. The need for legal aid centres will be kept under review by the Law Society and my right hon. and noble Friend's Department. The £25 scheme will come into effect in April, 1973, and it is hoped that this scheme will indicate where the need for legal aid centres is greatest.
I turn to the house property position. I have already said that it is proposed to increase the £5,000 disregard to £6,000. The advisory committee has been especially considering the allowances for house property. I hope that it will be realistic and will take modern prices and costs into account.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner and the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) have referred to the question of the middle man. That is what the regulations are about—to help the middle man, perhaps only in a modest way. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) misconceived the purpose of the regulations, which is to make legal aid available to more people in prosecuting or defending civil actions. In any area in which fixed limits are set there will always be people who fall on the wrong side of the line and there is hardship. There will always have to be a line. The question is where to draw it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not think it is a question of misconception. Perhaps I accentuated the position in order to show its unfairness. I am concerned about those in the criminal classes who can get away with it. Something better could, and should, be done for those in the middle class.

The Attorney-General: In order to stay in order I must deal with the regulations, and they are concerned with civil legal aid and not with criminal legal aid, which is another matter.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West and the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South made play with the fact that we are introducing the commons commis-

sioner, that esoteric gentleman, and the esoteric law upon which he will have to decide. I thought I made the position clear, but perhaps it was not clear enough. Legal aid will have to be granted in such proceedings. It is certain that it will have to be legal aid as opposed to any other form of aid because the law is difficult and complicated and it is impossible for a farmer or smallholder to argue it himself. Here is a clear case. None of the other cases is absolutely clear. The Nuffield Foundation and other foundations are doing very important and detailed research in this respect, and it would be foolish to rush in before we had their advice or before the results of their research had been put before the advisory committee. These matters will begin now, because registration is completed. Objections can be made. This is vital to a few people. It is a clear case, and we point to it and say that in this respect legal aid is necessary. We have therefore taken the opportunity to introduce the order to help those people.
Nothing can be more agreeable than for an Attorney-General as agent for the Lord Chancellor to be able continually to ask for increases, even if it means that the hon. Member for West Ham, North has his usual say about lawyers. It is agreeable to ask for increases and extensions of legal aid. They may be modest, but they are important and they will be useful. They will help those whom we wish to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — SIGNALS RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT, CHRISTCHURCH

11.21 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I greatly welcome the opportunity of raising the matter of the Signals Research Development Establishment at Christchurch. This matter concerns not only myself but my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) and the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson).
This matter is of grave concern to the staff of the establishment. I have in my hand a notice of dissent signed by 180 members of the staff which I propose to read:
We, the Undersigned, Mobile Members of the staff in SRDE, view with dismay and anger the very bare Precis of the Rationalisation Committee's proposals, and the extraordinary short time which our staff negotiators are being given to discuss them.
We insist that: unless the Management/Rationalisation Committee are prepared to allow our Staff Representatives ample time in which to discuss with the Committee the pros and cons of a fully documented case for rationalisation, together with considered alternatives, we will not co-operate.
The decision of the Ministry of Defence to close this research development establishment is one of major concern causing a great deal of anxiety and unsettlement in Christchurch, not only to the staff of the establishment but to the community as a whole. The honourable career of this establishment started in 1903 and continued all the way through the First and Second World Wars with development of very special wireless telegraphy. The establishment was responsible in the Second World War for the invention of the No. 10 microwave radio set used by all three Services.
It is proposed to transfer the work of the establishment to the Royal Radar Establishment in Malvern. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny whether this is the situation. When I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two or three weeks ago he said that there was not a definite decision yet on the question of closure. This has been a matter of unsettlement. I should like to have an answer "yes" or "no" tonight

on whether the decision has been taken. On behalf of the people of Christchurch I strenuously oppose the closure of this establishment.
The demise of this establishment will have a devastating effect on the social and economic life of the town and its immediate surroundings, since the staff of the establishment are well integrated with the local community.
The SRDE is the largest employer in Christchurch and about 900 people work there. Of these, 300 may be considered as mobile; they are highly qualified, highly paid civil servants. The remaining 600 are lower-paid employees, both skilled and unskilled. If all these people were to lose their jobs the effect on Christchurch would be devastating. Although the 300 mobile civil servants would be moved to jobs elsewhere, such a mass exodus would have a marked effect upon the commercial prosperity of the town and would put a relatively enormous strain on the property market.
The wages and salaries paid in the SRDE are in the neighbourhood of £2 million per annum, and most of the money will be spent locally in the shops, on entertainments, rates and other pursuits. The cash flow in the local community will be reduced by approximately this figure if the establishment closes down or moves. Further, over 100 SRDE wives have local jobs, which are mainly of the service type. A characteristic of the Christchurch type of "older citizen" community is that an above-average level of supporting services is required, much of which is provided by the SRDE wives. If the establishment is disbanded, the effect on community facilities for the older citizen is likely to be very marked.
As for the skilled and unskilled workers, I must emphasise that jobs will have to be found for them should the Ministry fail to take them to alternative employment elsewhere. Christchurch has no shortage of vacancies for skilled machine workers, though this could change dramatically—for reasons which I shall presently relate. But for the unskilled the situation is one of despair. Christchurch does not have the industry to employ them. We have a total employed population of about 14,000, corn-prising 10,000 men and 4,000 women, and


we have about 500 unemployed men registered and about 50 women. Of the men registered as unemployed, 52 per cent, are over 67 and 70 per cent. are over 50. I do not know what proportion of SRDE workers are unskilled, but I would estimate that the figure is about 300. Therefore, if any of these men are above 50 years of age, the future is bleak. All these workers have families and take an active part in the life of the town. I beg the Minister not to disturb the social and economic life of our community needlessly by making these men redundant.
The reason why I say that such redundancies would be needless is that it is my considered opinion that there is no need to close down the establishment. It easily pays its way, and it has played, and continues to play, a vital role in the highly efficient communications system used by the British Army of the Rhine. Furthermore, the establishment is at once compact, well-organised and successful. Much of its work earns foreign currency. The SRDE workers are an essential group in Christchurch, and I believe that the Minister has a duty to ensure that their work continues, that their jobs are secured and that the town of Christchurch is not devastated by the closure of the SRDE.
It is certain that the onus of proving the necessity—I say "necessity", not "desirability"—of closing the establishment is squarely upon the Minister. It is an onus that he will not easily discharge. Should he come forward with a strong case for closing the establishment, I still insist that these workers who cannot be absorbed in other Ministry establishments must be protected and helped. The Minister must actively encourage other local employers to take them on. I do not think it is asking too much in this situation to request that the orthodox methods of the Ministry be bypassed. A golden opportunity has presented itself.
Messrs. Penny and Giles Limited, a member of the Penny and Giles Group, wishes to increase its undertaking in the Christchurch area. The company is based at Mudeford. It would like to buy 45 acres of the site presently occupied by the establishment. It seeks to erect a purpose-built construction. If this went through, the company could take on between 150–250 extra personnel. This

would alleviate the increase in unemployment consequent on the closure of the establishment, as well as the redundancy problem caused by the closure of the British Aircraft Corporation plant at Hurn, close to Christchurch, which over the last 18 months has suffered redundancies amounting to 12,000 men.
I have asked that in this instance the orthodox methods of disposal of Crown land should be bypassed. The Department is already in the process of selling off surplus land at the establishment. Planning permission for industrial development has been granted by the county council for part of the land which has been bought by the local authority.
The disposal of surplus land is controlled by the Property Services Agency, which is required to offer land to other Government Departments and then to local authorities. If no offers are accepted there has to be a public auction. Penny and Giles could bid for the land, but there is always the possibility of some other purchaser outbidding it. This company will expand 'its interests in Christchurch if it can get the land. It would thus be enabled to employ a sizeable number of workers made redundant by the closure of the establishment. If the company cannot expand at Christchurch it is highly likely that it will move to Wales, where it can expand. This would aggravate a worsening situation.
I concede that the set method of the disposal of land is fair and wise. However, this is an exceptional situation, and the Department must do everything to mitigate the damage it will cause by the closing of the establishment. People are more important than procedures, and no procedure is wholly just if strict adherence to it ignores good reason and humanity. I ask the Minister to do one of two things—halt any plans to close the establishment at Christchurch or confine redundancies as much as possible and give every encouragement to Messrs. Penny and Giles Ltd. to step into the breach.

11.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): The House will recognise the anxieties on the part of his constituents which lie behind my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) in raising this subject. I recognise


too, the interest in this important matter of my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) and Dorset, North (Mr. David James). I have had the opportunity this evening of talking with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who has also explained to me many of the important points referred to by my hon. Friend. He also assured me that he takes a close interest in the problem.
There are two points with which I must deal before dealing with the matters raised by my hon. Friend. There is no dispute between us about the vital importance of the work which the Signals Research Development Establishment is carrying out and its capacity to carry on such work in future. Whatever decisions are taken, the value of this work will not be lost. What is in question is the best way of reconciling the need to continue work of this kind with the various factors which I shall mention.
Secondly—here I am answering one question put to me by my hon. Friend—I must make it clear that no decision about the establishment's future has yet been made. Certain proposals for rationalising the Department's research and development activities were put confidentially to representatives of the staff associations and trade unions on 19th October. One of the proposals affected the SRDE. Our consultations with the staff associations and the trade unions have not yet been completed. When they have been completed, that is the time when decision will be taken.
On consultation, to which my hon. Friend referred when he read an extract from a document early in his speech, I should like to make clear what the position has been. Since 19th October there has been an exchange of letters in which the reactions of the staff side to the broad proposals were put forward and were answered by the Permanent Secretary.
A meeting to discuss this correspondence took place and further information which was asked for was supplied to the staff side. A thorough examination has been made with the staff side of the technical arguments in favour of the rationalisation proposals, and local delegates from the establishments affected are

similarly being given an opportunity to make representations.
A meeting between the Controller of Research and all the establishments affected is due to take place tomorrow. On 1st December a senior official will meet the trade unions, and on 4th December the secretary of the procurement executive will be meeting the staff side. On these occasions there will be a full opportunity for discussions and the putting of questions.

Mr. Cordle: Will there be an opportunity also for the town clerk and a deputation from the council to have discussions with my hon. Friend or with the Secretary of State?

Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has just written to the Town Clerk of the Borough of Christchurch saying that he would be happy to meet a deputation from the borough council, and he would appreciate my hon. Friend's attendance.

Mr. Cordle: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.

Mr. Blaker: Turning to the substance of the proposal which my hon. Friend has criticised, I should like to give the general background to the House. The starting point is the formation of the Procurement Executive of the Ministry of Defence, following the report of Mr. Derek Rayner's project team published last year as a White Paper. Before the Procurement Executive was set up, the Navy Department, the Army Department and the Ministry of Aviation Supply each ran research and development establishments of their own. There was central co-ordination of programmes by the Ministry of Defence, but the organisations were fundamentally separate.
One of the more important objectives of the Rayner proposals, which the Government accepted, was to achieve some rationalisation of the activities of 30 different research and development establishments. The Rayner report regarded rationalisation as an urgent task aimed at giving better value for money. It would have been strange indeed if, as a result of bringing all these establishments under one management, the conclusion had been reached that until that time all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Towards the end of last year a number of studies were put in hand on the different aspects of the research and development programme—for example, communications, electronics, materials research and explosives research, all being subjects which fell within the scope of more than one research and development establishment. The aim of these studies was mainly to establish the facts and the realistic possibilities for reorganisation. When the studies began we informed the staff associations and the trade unions concerned of what we were doing and undertook to consult them before decisions were taken on the proposals.
The principles on which we attempted to plan the future size and shape of the organisation were fairly obvious and straightforward, but they bear very much on the case which my hon. Friend has made, and it might be useful to the House if I were to list them.
The first requirement was to produce an organisation which is more flexible than the present one. In the nature of things, research and development requirements vary greatly over the years, and to have a number of small establishments, each highly specialised, does not make for good managerial arrangements. The second principle was that the task should be done as economically as possible. This means, broadly, that we should try to minimise overheads and overlapping between the tasks of establishments. The third need was that wherever possible we should reduce defence land holdings. The fourth principle was that we should seek to devise an organisation which could get on with its job with the minimum of headquarters intervention.
The task was to reconcile those principles with the hard realities of the situation as revealed in the factual study to which I referred. The problem was to work out means of altering the shape of the organisation as cost-effectively as possible. It would have been easy to start with a clean sheet and work out in a vacuum the best allocation for the various activities, but the fact was that we started with a pattern of resources, both human and material, which could be altered only at considerable cost in terms both of money and of individual problems.
It would have been tempting to conclude that the disruption and the problems made all change undesirable, and this—I hope that my hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I say this—is the ultimate logic of the argument that there should be no change in the research establishments of the country. But that was not the conclusion to which we came. We found that certain changes, by bringing together related activities, would lead both to greater efficiency and to worthwhile money savings.
The proposed move of the Signals Research Development Establishment to Malvern would, we believe, be one such change. That establishments and the Royal Radar Establishment, Malvern, have a great deal of technical background in common, and the total of facilities which they would require together would be less than they would require if kept apart. Their runnings costs would be lower, and their total land requirements would be lower.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the important question of employment in the area. I should like to give my own views on this problem because I represent a a seaside area where there is the problem of seasonal unemployment and where the structure of the population from the point of view of age is similar to that which my hon. Friend described. I ask my hon. Friend to remember that we are talking about proposals which, if they are adopted, are not expected to be brought into effect until between three and five years from now. My hon. Friend gave the figure of 300 for mobile individuals. My information is that it is more than 400.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of Messrs. Penny and Giles creating 150 to 250 additional jobs in the Christchurch area, provided they can acquire part of the site of the Signals Research Development Establishment. This raises the whole question of the procedures for disposing of land which is surplus to Ministry requirements. As my hon. Friend rightly said, this is a matter for the Property Services Agency. He described the procedure which it normally followed. These procedures may seem time-consuming and complex but they have been designed to safeguard the public purse and cannot lightly be put aside. I understand that my hon.


Friend has already discussed his suggestion with the Secretary of State for Defence, who felt able to hold out little hope of arranging a sale on the lines suggested. It would be wrong for me to hold out any more hope, but I understand that Messrs. Penny and Giles is in correspondence with the Property Services Agency.
It is never a popular or painless process for a Government Department to seek to save money. As has been said before, everyone is in favour of general economies and particular expenditure. No one could expect that the Ministry's plans for the rationalisation of

research and development establishments, when they are determined, will commend themselves to all those directly or indirectly affected. But I assure the House and my hon. Friend in particular that our decisions will be taken only after a very thorough consideration of the technical position that we have established from our own studies and of the technical effect on individuals and communities, including my hon. Friend's own area, to which he has so ably drawn attention tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.